Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
      • 160 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

Another claim - **WON**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1849 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

You are right. Enc means 1 item is enclosed - it's Encs for more than 1.

It's a sad state of affairs when big companies cannot write letters, following the rules of both style and grammar. Some of Abbey's letters are appalling.

;) nn

FAQs: click here: http://READ THESE

 

Any views or opinions expressed are in good faith, to the best of my ability. I don't like to admit it, but I have been known to be wrong. Check other threads and if in doubt, seek professional advice.

 

 

Abbey: SETTLED IN FULL:lol:

BoS M/card SETTLED 27/09:lol:

Aqua CC (Halifax) SETTLED 28/06 :lol:

GMAC Request for refund 14/6; Prelim 31/7; LBA 11/9

First National Mortgage Data Protection Act sent 14/6 Statements 26/7

Cap 1 - SETTLED IN FULL:lol:

Abbey x 2: 50% offer refused AQ filed

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I've just looked at our letter and it's the same. Now I'm OK with the signature because that's standard for legal and accountancy partnerships but the Enc is another matter. When I was reading my guide book on small claims procedures (the one advertised on the forum) it emphasise the need to send a copy of the AQ to the other side. Now I wonder if they meant to attach their copy of the AQ but forgot that bit. I was going to have a dig when I send mine so let's see what response that elicits (perhaps a Homeresque D'oh)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I put in the box that the defendant will be required to supply evidence of the costs incurred in respect of the breach of contract. This was because the form seemed to ask for anything that the court may need to clarify or manage the claim. I took the view that if they refused to put the evidence in the bundle for the hearing, I or more likely the judge could to require the evidence be provided in say a preliminary hearing. I later read that it could be left blank and then wondered if I had left myself open to being listed for something other than the small claims procedure. However it was too late by then so I will have to live with the consequences if it does have an impact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned that I had previously requested the Abbey to disclose the basis for calculating its administrative costs incurred for each failed transaction and that the bank had chosen not to provide such information. Abbey's reluctance had led me to believe that there was some doubt as to whether they were acting in good faith and that, based on the bank's last set of financial results, the figures do not support its claim of merely recovering costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

wow! Have just read and fasinating reading!

 

I am just about to send my very first letter off tomo. I have noticed that since jan 05 my dd charge for unpaid dd has increased from £20 to £ 35 can u believe that ?! Not good Abbey!

 

Sadly I am not great with bank jargon so kinda worried about it but will give it a go!

Link to post
Share on other sites

i noticed that some DD charges were £30 and some were £32 even on the same statement. I also noticed that the charge for chqs paid wile insufficient funds was upped from £20 to £30

 

sorry for hijacking the thread but kinda relevent... what happened to chq processing that required an increase of £10??? explain that one Abbey in your list of charges

Abbey £4340.59 *WON* Jan 07

 

Abbey II MCOL 31/03/07 £8800.00

 

Please note..I AM NOT AN EXPERT ANYTHING WHAT I POST IS PURELY MY OPINION AND MAY BE WRONG IT IS JUST BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OR EXPERIENCE

 

Read my latest claim its a fast track potentially

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/61406-noobrider-abbey-take-2-a.html?highlight=noobrider

 

read my first claim which includes attending a directions hearing in court

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/10576-noobrider-abbey.html?highlight=noobrider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly be an interesting question IF we ever get to ask them in court. I had noticed a few odd things like that and I had mentally decided they were useful questions to ask. I assume the truth of the matter is that the bank decided they could get away with charging even more so they did. It's the reason for their downfall really. If they hadn't been so greedy and kept them at £10 or so we probably wouldn't be here today as the argument would be harder to justify in the first place. (It's still unlawful though - that's the 'last word voice' speaking!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Today we have had a form from the Court titled

General Form of Judgement or Order

 

The wording of the order is

Before District Judge S**** sitting in D**** County Court.

Upon neither party attending it is ordered that

1 The matter be listed for Allocation Hearing before the District Judge sitting in D**** County Court on 1st September 2006 at 12.30 (T/E 20 minutes) to consider the defendants request for expert evidence.

The claimant shall not later than 5 days prior to the appointment file a case summary and schedule of proposed directions, to be agreed if possible. In the event of disagreement the defendants shall within the like period file their proposed directions and reasons. The date and time of the appointmant must be clearly endorsed on the covering letter.

Permission for telephone hearing if all parties agree, defendants to make the arrangements.

I can't recall seeing anything like this on any other thread. Can anyone give me some advice on this please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone able to help with this please?

 

I didn't see a copy of the Abbey's Allocation Questionnaire so I have no idea what expert witness they want. Any thoughts apart from the obvious asking DLA Piper for a copy (and why they didn't send me a copy!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be answered shortly

When you want to fool the world, tell the truth. :D

Advice & opinions of Janet-M are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any

doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest stephen

I take it you asked for the case to be listed in the Small claims track?

It appear they have asked for either the fast or mulit track Hence the Allocation hearing

 

So this looks like they have applied for the case to be moved to either the fast track or the multi track and are asking for an expert to give evidence at the hearing.

 

 

He is asking you to file a summary of the case,

 

This means what the legal arguments and against the bank. And what the defence

 

He also wants to know if you any proposed directions,

 

 

Your proposed directions would be that the case be listed in the small claims track however I have a feeling its going to be listed in the fast or multi track

I would have suggest the case be listed for 1 day and that it should be a joint expert which both parties agree on

 

Furthermore that you also want the defendant to supply a break down of there administration charges,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for coming back to me mjanet.

 

Yes, they did file the AQ and sent me a letter about it but didn't send me a copy. I have reminded them that it is good practice to send a copy but there has been no response. In fact they seemed to send us a standardised letter that did not seem to reflect the current state of play. It was not from our usual contact at DLA Piper etc. We sent an email to Jodie Bilsland and received an autoreply saying she was out of the office to 22 June (which was the day we sent the email) but still no contact over 2 weeks later.

 

I think it's a bit off asking for an expert witness and not even talking to us about it. I understood that no experts are allowed without the permission of the court and even then only if it is an impartial witness. I can't see why they would want an impartial one so I am very suspicious about all this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest stephen

if you need help with this i would need to see the banks defence and there allocation questionnaire,

also how much are you claiming

 

 

DLA Piper etc i know them well, they probably contact with there proposed directions in fact you can bet on it

 

 

if they get the case in the fast or mulit track then i be happy to help you. I knwo DLA very well from my victory over them Boy i made them sweet, so dont worry

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to be slightly behind you. My AQ is due on the 15th July. I e-mailed DLA on the 4th to tell them I was putting in my AQ in the 12th and got the automated reply that David Cook was out of the office. Also my previous e-mail rejecting their offer on 24th June hasn't been acknowledged. Don't know whether to e-mail again saying they have 5days left to refund 100% and save us another £100. What does anyone think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds very similar to our claim. I am beginning to suspect DLA Piper are very busy! Try again and ask them to acknowledge. If they still don't respond within a couple of days send it by registered post. Don't let them off the hook.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have still had no response from my AQs. I thought as everything else was 2 days behind your jones then I would get my letter 2 days after you! But it is not to be.Question to Stephen, what does this line mean:

 

DLA Piper etc i know them well, they probably contact with there proposed directions in fact you can bet on it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest stephen

It means the defendants representatives will send a copy of there proposed directions to the claimant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1849 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...