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

lowell group


sam614
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5606 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

Obviously the Leeds Losers are totally unaware that a CCJ has been issued. They are the ones who brought up the point about the alleged debt being Statute Barred in March next year. A CCJ does not become Statute Barred although after 6 years they would have to go back to Court and satisfy a Court as to why they had not tried to enforce the CCJ. I woild send Clownells the Stat Barred letter because if there was a CCJ issued against you 6 yrs ago its likely that the last payment was made a good few months before then.

 

Remove details of the figures quoted from your origianl post as the ''Guests'' from the Leeds Losers may be able to identify you from them.

  • Haha 1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Standard threatomatic generated by the Lowell Group. I have a bundle of those letters from them.

 

Their legal department is Hampton iLegal. Thats probably somneone with an O Level in Law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just after going through my Clownell file. I must say it brought a huge smile to my face after reading through the pile of pooh that they have sent me over the years. Reading back through their so called scary letters now one cannot help but chuckle at their empty threats and their fancy names that they have for the various employees in their Leeds Threat Centre. I thought it was only Morecrap whop had the laughinly entitled Pre- Court Division. Lowells have the Pre Litigation Department and the Pre Statutory Demand Division or their specialist insolvecy departmen Red Debt. What a bunch of sad losers they really are. The best thing about it is that if they had behaved with just a shred of common sense and an minmum amount of manners then I would have probably have paid them. Instead they started up with threats and insults and promises of all sorts of nonsense. They got me riled and I found CAG. The alleged debts are well and truly Unenforceable and Statute Barred now. Thank You Lowells for giving me the strength and knowledge to take on your fellow parasites in you parasitic industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...