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
      • 161 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

Test Case Judgment due 24/04/08


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5843 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

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

lol they took £35 off me on monday out of my tax credits so they aint that soft yet ,, oh well :(

 

Call them at 9am tomorrow and ask for it back, mate, nowt to lose.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol think they would pay me all they owe ,, haa haa , will wait til Thurs see wat happens , then i,ll get it all back even wat they owe since i put me claim in ,, that must be another couple of 100 on top lol ,, sheesh , :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bank Charges Result Thurs & 2,000,000 Thanks!

Bank Charges Test Case Result Due This Thur 24 April. The result of the Office of Fair Trading and Banks' court case will be handed down on Thurs. This will answer whether it’s possible bank charges can be unlawful under unfair contractual terms rules. If they can, the OFT must then say whether they are unlawful, which it’s likely to do.

 

From Moneysavings expert web site

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing we can do is wait until tomorrow, there will be advice from here as to what you should do contingent on the outcome.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try this link

 

icon1.gif Re: Bank charges ruling due on Thursday 24th April

 

This is what it says (in case above doesnt work)

 

Don't forget that the handing down of the Judgement on Thursday is likely to only be in relation to the current Terms and Conditions of the Banks and whether they are subject to a test of fairness, as argued by the OFT in accordance with the UTCCR 1999. It is quite likely that any decision or guidance to the County Courts regarding the application of UTCCR 1999 in relation to historic terms and also the penalty charge aspects of unauthorised overdraft charges ( the majority of people's stayed claims are based on historic terms and penalty charge aspects) will probably not be given until a month or so after the initial judgment.

 

 

This is what Justice Andrew Smith said on the last day of the Test Case ( almost his final words ).

 

"I have already said that the reason I felt it appropriate to deal with the current terms at this stage, and not deal with the historic terms, is because there is every indication that to some extent my findings will translate readily to a significant proportion of the historic terms, and that, while nothing is certain, might well lead to decisions on the historic terms being made in very short order, within a month one would certainly hope ( of the initial judgment )."

 

Neverthless, I am sure we will all be reading into whatever the Judge has decided to hand down on Thursday and surmising the possible outcomes for our own outstanding claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

several people have already done so, a number were refunded within minutes of calling.

 

I know one person who was kindly called a couple of days ago and informed a direct debit would take them over limit, and asked if they wanted to cancel it before incurring any charges.

 

They didn't even bother to take their £12 in late payment charges off me last month when i missed the deadline by a day.

 

Well, I have just phoned Barclays (bearing in mind I have a case stayed since august for a measly £120!) about a charge on my separate account (put money in same day as mortgage came out, have done it before and it has always gone through, but this time, they bounced it, go figure :rolleyes:), asked nicely the young lady, I still got the "yes on this occasion, but future charges will stand" spiel, but she refunded it with no argument! The last time it had happened, I had had to argue till I was blue in the face that they had levied it incorrectly as per their own T&Cs, you'd have thought it was coming out of the guy's own pocket! :shock:

 

Let's not read too much into this, but WOW. It's hard not to feel a little flutter of hope. :oops:

Link to post
Share on other sites

From here:

 

 

COURT 73

Before MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH

Thursday 24 April 2008

At 10:00

For Judgment

2007-1186 Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bookworm,

Reading your entry #38, if things are sorted quite soon, and charges are to be paid out will I be able to claim for additional charges that have been applied since my initial claim, it only another 3x£35, but every little helps!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bookworm,

Reading your entry #38, if things are sorted quite soon, and charges are to be paid out will I be able to claim for additional charges that have been applied since my initial claim, it only another 3x£35, but every little helps!!

Absolutely, yes! :-D
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...