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 5050 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

I heard on the news yesterday on working lunch I think it was,... that Virgin are opening their banks and that 'everyone will have to pay monthly fees for current accounts...if all the banks assume this position will that not diminish the argument of 'free-in-credit banking' ...and ironically deprive the consumer of that very 'Unfair Relationship' argument in the coming months???

 

m2ae:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

We don't just report the news - we make it! :D

 

Just watch this space in July once HBOS hav ebeen in Glassgow Sheriff Court! ;)

 

BD

 

PS - I should have guessed from your photo you were an Essex girl (even up here we've heard of them).

Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't just report the news - we make it! :D

 

Just watch this space in July once HBOS hav ebeen in Glassgow Sheriff Court! ;)

 

BD

 

PS - I should have guessed from your photo you were an Essex girl (even up here we've heard of them).

 

I can't see a photo for that person lol ??? unless you mean on the article and wasn't it a male ???

 

The hint is in the first two words

 

A MAN who allowed his account to go a few pence overdrawn has been charged £80.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean the rather fetching figure in your posts with the matching outfit (including hat and glove) and the endearing suggestion as to what should be done with one's digit! :)

 

BD

 

PS I think I may be in love! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean the rather fetching figure in your posts with the matching outfit (including hat and glove) and the endearing suggestion as to what should be done with one's digit! :)

 

BD

 

PS I think I may be in love! :D

 

You are so barking up the wrong tree lol :eek:

Edited by rdm2006
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Barking not in Essex too? Anyway enough of this flirting or we'll get told off for being off topic!

 

BD

 

Barking is in Essex, however, Essex is not in the Midlands where I am and just like dearth vader was male so am I

 

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news concerning your love life :grin::grin::grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Devastated. Friends bank charges claim struck out. We spent ages working on our written submissions, we incorporated the Supreme Court Judgement and the directing to S.5 UTCCR's we also sent the court an entire copy of the judgement. Additionally included the positive development in the Scottish case of Sharp v Bank of Scotland plc (2010). It didn't work Judge threw whole claim out.

 

Any suggestions anyone?

 

TheyrCriminals

Edited by TheyrCriminals
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Devastated. Friends bank charges claim struck out. We spent ages working on our written submissions, we incorporated the Supreme Court Judgement and the directing to S.5 UTCCR's we also sent the court an entire copy of the judgement. Additionally included the positive development in the Scottish case of Sharp v Bank of Scotland plc (2010). It didn't work Judge through whole claim out.

 

Any suggestions anyone?

 

TheyrCriminals

 

Did he give reasons? Who is we? Flagged up for site team attention

Edited by rdm2006
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

We phoned the court to find out the result but as yet we have not had the written Order through which we are hoping will shed some light on it but this is a massive setback. Can we get the claim reinstated?

 

TheyrCriminals

 

The strikeout order I received gave me 7 days (I think) to apply for the judgement to be varied or set aside. I came here for help, received stirling advice from the site team, and applied via N244 to have the strikeout judgement overturned. It worked, although it wasn't a bank charges claim - it was a finance company claim. Think the same or similar principles apply though.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/246352-finance-company-claim-strilkeout.html

Edited by HomerJSimpson
7 days not 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Devastated. Friends bank charges claim struck out. We spent ages working on our written submissions, we incorporated the Supreme Court Judgement and the directing to S.5 UTCCR's we also sent the court an entire copy of the judgement. Additionally included the positive development in the Scottish case of Sharp v Bank of Scotland plc (2010). It didn't work Judge threw whole claim out.

 

Any suggestions anyone?

 

TheyrCriminals

 

A simple strike out doesn't mean you can't try again unless it's judgment. Don't despair as provided you use different arguments as in GLC then you can re-issue however my advice before re-issuing is to await a Scottish judgment which if favourable you can use

Link to post
Share on other sites

you'll probably get an order through from the court giving you 7 days to stay, set aside or vary the claim. you need to apply with a N244 application giving your reasons why the decision is wrong and attach your proposed amended POC and relevant fee - it doesnt sound like you attended a hearing - some courts are doing this off their own backs then allowing people to overturn it later - I only know of one case so far other than yours that has not been allowed to continue - if a hearing is set you MUST ATTEND

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

We phoned the court to find out the result but as yet we have not had the written Order through which we are hoping will shed some light on it but this is a massive setback. Can we get the claim reinstated?

 

TheyrCriminals

 

I have just read Homer's Thread.

 

As JonCris has pointed out there has been no judgement and therefore no finality in the matter.Set asides are pretty common however you will need to be incisive in your follow ups and bear in mind that your issue IS one that applies within the context of the SC decision.

 

You will need to sharpen your sword and distinguish issues in SC decision from your situ.

 

Have a read although contextually Homer's was outwith the Banking structure but I am so sure you may identify with a few things.

 

Homer has successfully applied for a set aside (Procedure) and is currently awaiting response from the defendants.

 

HJs claim was also initially dismissed/struck out.

Edited by means2anend
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...