Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 162 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Letter to HON Ruth Kelly


DReilly
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5989 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Ref: Notification of Impounded Vehicle:

 

Dear Ruth

 

I have been representing ***wood Road at the local cabinet concerning the dangers we as residents face eveyday on ***wood Road because of the lack of Road Safety measures. Because of the lack of Goverment resources i have been informed that the local goverment are unable to provide adequate safety measures requested by 70 petition members of Ascot.

 

I have already had a Volkswagon Golf written off just before my daughter and i were about to enter the vehicle..( Angels were watching over us that day) and NOw my Alfa Romeo wing mirrors torn off.

 

After seeking advice from friends and the local residents, I SORNED my car and placed it OFF ROAD on what i and everyone else believed to be UNADOPTED land as it was thought to be owned by goverment training ..

I acted in genuine good faith with a belief in lawfulness. I did not act with any culpable intent and am 'apparently innocent'.

 

Criminal punishment of the ignorant is an arbitrary and abusive exercise of Govermental Power.

 

I argue that under the given circumstances ( see supporting letter Rev M Trimming) I am not liable due to Apparent Innocent conduct. Therefore, should be invited in such cases to assess whether, given the local context in which the alledged offence occurred, any basis exists to assign blame to a defendant for his/her acts.

 

I ask that you grant direct authority to evaluate issues of FAIR NOTICE and apparent innocence will preserve the social power and flexibility of the criminal sanction by acknowledging the highly contextual nature of it's legitimate use. Further more, lawmakers and enforcement authorities will have an increased incentive to recognise the crucial role they must play in ensuring internalization of the law's expectations.

 

I am a single mother on local state benefits saving her pennies to buy new wing mirrors so my KEY to future EMPLOYMENT can pass it's MOT and i can get it TAXED.

 

Please grant me the law of flexibility.

 

Kind Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

patdavis is cags motoring expert with lots of really helpful advice. I think pat was just pointing out the law only requires a car to have at least one wing mirror. We all know its better to have two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bear in mind that you do not need both wing/door mirrors to pass an MoT test.

 

As long as you have one plus the interior mirror...

 

Almost true: I believe in most cases, you must have the drivers side wing mirror. Also, if the passenger side wing mirror is broken, it may fail due to sharp edges etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost true: I believe in most cases, you must have the drivers side wing mirror. Also, if the passenger side wing mirror is broken, it may fail due to sharp edges etc.

 

Not so, I have just had my car pass it's MoT test with a shattered driver's side mirror. The legal requirement is for one wing or door mirror on a car.

 

(In case anybody wants to know: the reason it wasn't replaced for the test is that they cost £134 since the mirror is heated and auto-dipping - it is on back-order with the main dealer)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must confess, I always thought it was the drivers side mirror too.

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

------------

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so, I have just had my car pass it's MoT test with a shattered driver's side mirror. The legal requirement is for one wing or door mirror on a car.

 

(In case anybody wants to know: the reason it wasn't replaced for the test is that they cost £134 since the mirror is heated and auto-dipping - it is on back-order with the main dealer)

 

Not sure how you "got away" with that. My car failed last year on a broken offside (drivers) mirror. There were no sharp edges, only the glass was missing.

 

My source seems to be at odds with yours:

Wing Mirror

 

Trying to find a more reliable quote...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep correct answer, a private car first used after August 1978 MUST be fitted with two mirrors. One internal and one mounted on the offside and both must be able to be used by the driver.

 

Reg 33 of the Con & Use regs sets out the requirements

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh - I do remember something about 1978. I was going to mention it earlier, but couldn't remember what it was.

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

------------

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh - I do remember something about 1978. I was going to mention it earlier, but couldn't remember what it was.

 

 

The mind boggles Dave, was it a particulary blurry year for you?:p

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...