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

mental mini's brighthouse problems :(


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5481 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

quote

Ok

 

Sounds to me like you have been conned by BH good and proper.

 

This needs really clarifying though, to make sure we get them by the short and curlies!!

 

Did you have OSC (Optional Service Cover)? It's incidental really, because the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act would be more than sufficient to make sure that your faulty laptop was either repaired, replaced or refunded. The only exception is if the damage was caused accidentally, or through natural wear and tear.

 

If it was dealt with via this method, then BH would have to pick up the tab, and redress it to the manufacturer themselves AFTER you had been dealt with satisfactorily.

 

However, they have simply gone down the route of processing a DLC claim. The item has been BER'd (beyond economical repair) and you had to pay a standard £100 excess that they levy on claims for laptops, and another 3 weeks payments while they drag out their decision. This is ludicrous and down right theft IMHO.

 

The new laptop you have is on a new agreement isn't it? Well they just signed you up for a new laptop from the beginning again. As the other was written off as part of a DLC claim, the money you have paid on it is written off too, as it is considered as a rental!

 

So, we need to clarify 1) exactly what was wrong with the laptop and how it occured, 2) did you have OSC on the old laptop and 3) did you sign a new agreement for the new laptop.

 

If they have done the dirty on you, then we have many ways in which we can get justice for you, including exposing them in the media. But lets not get ahead of ourselves, lets get the facts straight first.

 

 

1) the laptop slipped off the settee & the screen broke

2) i did have a OSC on the old laptop

3) i did sign a new agreement on the new laptop

 

 

i knew in my heart it wasn't right

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) the laptop slipped off the settee & the screen broke

 

2) i did have a OSC on the old laptop

 

3) i did sign a new agreement on the new laptop

 

 

Sorry, but you're not going to like this!

 

As unfair as this sounds, the claim was because of accidental damage.

 

Therefore the branch was right to make a DLC claim.

 

Unfortunately, DLC only protects the future payments to BH, at whatever point the agreement is at. It DOES NOT replace your item. This is why I always tell people to use their own house contents insurance, or get it if you don't have it.

 

If you had not long to pay for this, it would have been more "customer focussed" to see what other options were available to you, rather than just following the book.

 

I will forward this post to some members on here who are still employed by BH and see if they can help too, but I'm afraid the news isn't great.

 

PJ

Edited by plumberjon

PlumberJon :-D

 

UNUS VIR OBVIAM ORBIS TERRARUM

 

Are you being harrassed by a DCA or Brighthouse. Click the link for OFT Debt collection guidelines. Chances are, they could be in breach of some part of sections 2 or 3 or both!

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf

 

 

I just give advice, I can't do it for you though!!

 

If you were helped, then please wiggle my scales, and you might get a wiggle back!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - completely agree with Jon (as usual)...

I have carefully read through your case (spread over two threads!) and, what at first, sounded like yet another blatent disregard of the SUPPLY OF GOODS ACT (IMPLIED TERMS) 1973 turns out not to be so.

With the absence of your own home insurance, BrightHouse have acted quite correctly. (Albeit it somewhat underhanded)...

Look at it is this way: If you had purchased a laptop from, say, Currys - and taken out finance for the said laptop - and then you damaged it accidently, would you expect Currys to refund you, or supply a replacement?

My best advice would be to get some REAL home insurance and, when you're absolutely sure it covers items in your home subject to a hire purchase agreement, CANCEL your DLC policy with BrightHouse.

Sorry you've had to go through this.

Cheers

Lefty

If the left side of the brain controls your right, and the right side controls your left, then left-handed people are always in their right mind!

 

Please help to support this site with a small donation... every little helps...

 

CAG- The Nation's Weekly Info Store!

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - completely agree with Jon (as usual)...

 

I have carefully read through your case (spread over two threads!) and, what at first, sounded like yet another blatent disregard of the SUPPLY OF GOODS ACT (IMPLIED TERMS) 1973 turns out not to be so.

 

With the absence of your own home insurance, BrightHouse have acted quite correctly. (Albeit it somewhat underhanded)...

 

Look at it is this way: If you had purchased a laptop from, say, Currys - and taken out finance for the said laptop - and then you damaged it accidently, would you expect Currys to refund you, or supply a replacement?

 

My best advice would be to get some REAL home insurance and, when you're absolutely sure it covers items in your home subject to a hire purchase agreement, CANCEL your DLC policy with BrightHouse.

 

Sorry you've had to go through this.

 

 

Cheers

Lefty

 

 

 

 

 

Thank You, :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...