Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5023 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 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Did I just get a rap on the knuckles?

Sorry

Only news is on bbc website.

Its a little vague ,waiver to stay but county courts to make their own decision.

 

LOL, no you didnt hun but theres so many topics with people ranting about this whole test case, it would be good to keep this one simple and to the point!

So i take it the county courts will write to us then, with their decision?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is nothing new but may help see where we are.

 

Bank charges hang in the balance as test case awaits judge's decision

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know whenever I read about this and it states " the end of free banking" I always think when as it ever been free anyway - we get none stop charges!

NatWest : £857.00 won! March/07

Natwest : Witholding my statements & adding defaults etc , S.A.R sent Jan/08

Natwest for my partner : £2,101.00 won! Feb/07

Studio Cards : Refund for admin charges £108 Won! Dec/07

Complaint made to FOS for P.P.I Jan/08

Nationwide: S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent for statements Nov/07 ( waiting to see what happens in the OFT test case )

Littlewoods : defaulted on CCA request Feb/07

DCA's that crawled out from the woodwork and have crawled back : 28 so far!!

My favourite link on CAG:

Click here: Can't Find What You're Looking For? Here's A Complete A-z Index - The Consumer Forums

Link to post
Share on other sites

We also need to boycot the FSA and the courts to say whilst all court cases are stayed the Banks should freeze everything too ( there's countless cases of people being stuck in the stayed cases situation whilst the Banks keep piling on interest and more charges to those claims)

This is a one sided situation even before the decisions been made!

( rant over ) :mad:

NatWest : £857.00 won! March/07

Natwest : Witholding my statements & adding defaults etc , S.A.R sent Jan/08

Natwest for my partner : £2,101.00 won! Feb/07

Studio Cards : Refund for admin charges £108 Won! Dec/07

Complaint made to FOS for P.P.I Jan/08

Nationwide: S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent for statements Nov/07 ( waiting to see what happens in the OFT test case )

Littlewoods : defaulted on CCA request Feb/07

DCA's that crawled out from the woodwork and have crawled back : 28 so far!!

My favourite link on CAG:

Click here: Can't Find What You're Looking For? Here's A Complete A-z Index - The Consumer Forums

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one STONEDECROZE, there are a few big words in there but got the general jist of it ,looks like a bit of a wait but as they say good things are worth the wait? me thinks:) luv to BOOKWORM spke soon SELV ...X...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought - Not sure if anyone else has thought of this but:

 

If the banks have managed to get A Stay on all cases due to the ongoing test case then surely there should be a Stay on all charges being levied to accounts as it has not been decided if they are fair charges or not.

Nationwide - S.A.R sent 3/1/07

Statements receieved 01/02/07

Pre Lim sent 10/02/07

LBA sent 25/02/07

MCOL Submitted 14/05/2007

Case Closed - Won from NW 14/06/2007

 

 

Lloyds TSB -

Prelim sent 30/04/07

LBA Sent 15/05/07

 

OHs Lloyds TSB

Pre Lim Sent 30/04/07

LBA Sent 15/05/07

 

T-Mobile - Prelim sent 8/1/07 **WON** 18/1/07

 

 

Capital One - Prelim sent 10/01/07

Offer letter receieved 29/01/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly the 'FSA' allowed only a limited time for a 'stay'. So has anyone the details of how long this is and following that does that mean people can revert to the original plan of reclaiming charges?

In one way banks might find they are kind of winning but on the other hand they must be employing more and more people to reply to claiments? One wonders if they will throw that into the equation too? Personally I think the FSA acted unfairly to the general public as we all know banks continue to pour on the charges and are probably investing the unpaid claims to their betterment.

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two different claims with two different banks. The financial ombudsman has told me that as the oft test case has not been judged, then banks are legally entitled to chase you for any outstanding charges on your account. This is happening to me, westcot is chasing me for 280 quid, i have got them to look again because my claim is far more than what the abbey is asking for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Come on Andy Smith,you must be a bit of a slow reader or can't make your mind up ,if you have a problem send me an E-Mail and I will decide for you ,ok matey ;) ,luv to Bookworm XX

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is nothing new but may help see where we are.

 

Bank charges hang in the balance as test case awaits judge's decision

The first line says:

Now that both sides have been heard in the case of the Office of Fair Trading versus potentially unfair bank charges

Unfortunately, there is another side that needed to be heard, OUR SIDE, but that was not allowed.

:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two different claims with two different banks. The financial ombudsman has told me that as the oft test case has not been judged, then banks are legally entitled to chase you for any outstanding charges on your account. This is happening to me, westcot is chasing me for 280 quid, i have got them to look again because my claim is far more than what the abbey is asking for.

 

Usual one sided waffle from the chocolate teapot. In an other matter we already have the abilities & effectiveness of the Information Commissioners Office being questioned by some MP's.

 

I think this bunch need to be next particularly after their very one sided decision to let the banks of the hook whilst letting them continue to impose their appalling charges

 

If they issue proceedings you can counter claim whilst at the same time asking the court to stay the said proceedings.

 

Incidental the court, knowing there are disputed bank charges in the claim, won't be happy with the bank for issuing prior to the OFT Judgment

Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, as the amount claimed by the bank is made up of charges is legally in dispute, not only by you, but by the OFT, the court would have to stay any claim against you until after the test case judge gives his judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi

can anyone help. i know this has nothing to do with test case, but does with oft

i sent a load of original documentation (only because could not get it copies ) and sent it recorded mail to OFT

It was in connection with a complaint against Paragon Finance and their failure to respond to CCA and SAR request. It included all letters etc and documetation since 1995

I sent this at end of January and rang at the start of February to see what was happening. They said had not received it even though royal mail got proof of signature

where do i stand here if they dont find it? i could cry

HALIFAX: PRE 6 year claim 1991-2006 WON 21/3/07 £2616

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £800.22

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £325.75

AQUA - MCOL 2/3/07 £172.79

ABBEY - MCOL 2/3/07 £261.37

HALIFAX VISA - WON default removal 19/3/07

PARAGON - LBA 11/3/07

CABOT -SAR 26/2/07

ROCKWELL -OFFER 20/2/07

GMAC -MCOL 7/2/07 £189.85

WESTCOT - SAR 25/2/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you told them you have 'proof of signature' if so have you given them a name

 

I know it's the stable door but your experience is a salutary lesson in why it's a very bad idea to send originals.

 

How come they never seem to lose copies:???:

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes i have given them the ref number etc

i know its a lesson was off sick and never could get to copier and wanted it posted gone on too long

yes they ever lost any other copies

HALIFAX: PRE 6 year claim 1991-2006 WON 21/3/07 £2616

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £800.22

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £325.75

AQUA - MCOL 2/3/07 £172.79

ABBEY - MCOL 2/3/07 £261.37

HALIFAX VISA - WON default removal 19/3/07

PARAGON - LBA 11/3/07

CABOT -SAR 26/2/07

ROCKWELL -OFFER 20/2/07

GMAC -MCOL 7/2/07 £189.85

WESTCOT - SAR 25/2/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a little thought about all this ...

You know if you like came accross making cars run on water eventually you'd be offered an 'incentive' to sell to the oil companies or erm, shall we say 'nevr be heard of again'. I guess the banks in their usual predatory mode wish they could 'arrange' the same. I suppose headlines of '5 million people vanish overnight' might ring the odd alarm bell.

Thought I'd add a bit of humour to what's now becoming 'Office of Unfair Trading' vs 'Their mates, the Financial Institutions'.

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok demand they make a concerted effort to find your papers failing which, as this affects your ability to claim, you will report them for maladministration

 

sorry if i sound thick, but what does this mean and what can be done

HALIFAX: PRE 6 year claim 1991-2006 WON 21/3/07 £2616

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £800.22

CAPITAL 1 - WON 19/3/07 £325.75

AQUA - MCOL 2/3/07 £172.79

ABBEY - MCOL 2/3/07 £261.37

HALIFAX VISA - WON default removal 19/3/07

PARAGON - LBA 11/3/07

CABOT -SAR 26/2/07

ROCKWELL -OFFER 20/2/07

GMAC -MCOL 7/2/07 £189.85

WESTCOT - SAR 25/2/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...