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

Is Tescos Pulling A Fast One ????


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5595 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

Away from all of this and without prejudice to what I said earlier, it is something I might consider reporting to Trading Standards, depending on how principled I felt, and see what happens. If a lot of people complained, hey may do something. But in these days of intelligence lead enforcement and cost efficiencies, they may not. But worth a go to see what they say.

 

Probably nothing! :roll:

 

A bit of publicity c/o Watchdog or similar might be more effective.

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but as soon as I hear watchdog et al, I cringe. Whilst they do some good in bringing various problems and issues to people's attention, the primary aim is entertainment. I have lost count of the number of times where I have seen some "ripoff" issues that are more to do with a complex nature not being understood properly than they are to do with ripoffs (one instance I remember was travel insurance where Mr Nick whatever would not let the ABTA person finish what he wanted to say - and what he had to say to that point was perfectly reasonable).

 

Secondly, programs like this only take on the "juicy" things that they have received a number of complaints about.

 

Thirdly, if anything is found to be wrong, all that such programs can do is pass on their dossier of evidence, which is usually second hand at best (and I presume, in order to look juicy, sure to get the attention of the powers that be).

 

I would rather the information be given to a professional body with the power to do something about it if necessary, rather than it being given to a TV company for the entertainment of others.

 

And please, pretty please, do not turn this into some debate of Trading Standards. There has been enough of that on these forums. We all have our opinions on TS, and I distinctly remember a rather heated debate on this in the debt forums. But that is an aside to what I said above.

Edited by gyzmo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gyzmo, i hear what your saying, and can appreciate the extra cost involved, but with this in mind why do they sell fresh chickens in the refridgerated area as small, medium and large, and coincidently with visibly different sizes and sold by weight?

 

Hi Foolishgirl, im wondering if it would be an issue of enough significance to be on such a show, id certainly challenge everyone else to pop in there local store though and bring up the same complaint (that is unless the day i visted was a one off )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken re. Watchdog, agree with you on the superficial nature of the prog. gyzmo which is why this might be right up their street. Nothing actually unlawful but lots of viewer interest in a big supermarket with red faces.

 

Or you could try your local paper pfp. If they're desperate to fill pages now the snow news has gone & not dependent on tesco ads for their income, they might run it.

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You would be better off emailing Trading Standards who are at least in a position to do something about it if required. Email them anyway (or Consumer Direct - that has the benefit of a response nearly guaranteed).

 

As to the other point about frozen chickens, that comes down to how they can legally and reasonably be sold. By weight is the usual method as it is more convenient using the average weight system. But that gets into a complicated discussion which I am sure you are not interested in (nor where most of my fellow students despite it being rather important). Such frozen produce is usually weighed automatically, and that is easier in that scenario rather than some shop assistant having to weigh each individual chicken when they can just be sold by size (however inaccurately that may be). And that is really, really simplifying the matter, but it's the general gist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

OMG

 

This post, and that one from a 20 year old moaning about the Asda home shopping 'Outrage'.

 

Unbelievable.

 

Hammy

46 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

HMCTS Approved Technical Expert and Independent Motor Trade Consultant

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was quite funny when i took the chicken back actually, because it really did ronk i took it to customer services and explained the problem an she said well ive never heard of a problem before (which considering ive taken chicken back before on more than one occassion surprised me....obviously bad luck on my part) i said smell it, she said no i said SMELL IT!!! she said no im pregnant, i said what?? what the hell has that got to do with the price of eggs an bacon ....YOU SELL IT....YOU DAMN WELL SMELL IT!!!

 

 

Well I never! Are you not aware of the risks to the unborn fetus in a pregnant women around contaminated food I agree with her and certainly would NOT of taken ANY chances by inhaling in fumes from your disgusting chicken!

CAPITAL ONE (O/H!): Won £1864.63 including contractual :D

GE MONEY: WON £266.00

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...