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

Please help, problem with FPN


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5767 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

Hi Barnsley Boy and friends, I wonder if you can help? I too have been having problems with a company called Rossendale Collects. In Feb, I parked in a DFS car park in Carlisle. I'm not from the town and I genuinely did not see signs displaying the usual messages. I returned to the car to find a fixed penalty notice, for 1 hr 15 mins parking, and a fine of £30 rising to £80. To be honest, I didn't think the DVLA would hand out private details to these sort of companies (just shows how naive I am) and waited, but sure enough a letter came saying "despite previous requests for payment" although this was the 1st request for payment. I feel the fine is far too high for 1hr 15mins. When I returned to the car park for a second time (just to look) I noted that the nearest sign to where I parked was about 25 yds away and side on, not facing. There are no fences round the car park, so you can easily leave without passing a sign. I have had various requests for payment via phone and mail. I unfortunately on one occasion told one of their operators the nature of my grievance and after about the 5th phone call and letter sent them the following

"Dear Ms. B, As I told your representative who phoned the first time, I deny that a debt exists between us, because I had no contract with the landowner. The signs in the car park are totally inadequate and I did not see them. I have been back to the car park and taken photographs, which I will use as part of a vigorous defence, should you choose to instigate legal proceedings", Yours sincerely,

 

I realise now that this was probably a bad move. The letters stopped for a short while, but I had a phone call yesterday, saying that the signs have been checked, are fine and bailifs would call for payment. I know legally they can't do anything without a court judgement, but do you think given the nature of our exchanges that they will instigate proceedings against me? and if they do can I still get away with no more than £80, Yours with thanks in advance, Pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur, No point in "appealling" to these people. The most efficient thing to do is ignore completely. The phone call as you admit, not the best of ideas, the idea is to get them to spend their money. No matter, just ignore from now on, it will go away.

 

Rossendales are just debt collectors. THEY AREN'T GOING TO DO ANYTHING. They can't, they have no powers whatsoever. Eventually, when they tire of you ignoring them, they will refer the matter back to the PPC [which company is it?].

 

There is a vanishingly small chance that the PPC will issue court papers [about 1 in 10,000 chance or less]. If they do, rejoice, laugh out loud, you will get a cast iron defence courtesy of the legal eagles who fly over this and other forums.

 

Honestly, this is absolutely nothing to be concerned about. Most of us have been there, initial feelings of being intimidated soon turns to indignation. I now find any PPCs threats to be completely pathetic, you will get there too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...