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

OH v Cap 1 & Rob Way *** WIN ***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4872 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

  • Replies 303
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Intereting statement of account from Rob Way........

xxAug 2009 Legal Charge - Judgement £22

Interest charge £9.72

xx + 18 days Charge Reversal - Judgement £22

Interest Rebate £9.72

Looks like they were being a bit presumptive :eek:

Also interest charges of over £800!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Letter from Horwich Farrelly

'Please note that by an agreement dated xxSept. 2009 our client Rob Way & CoLtd transferred all of it's assets to Rob Way Ltd. As a consequence your account noted above and all of the rights, obligations and benefits :rolleyes: associated with your account were assigned by Rob Way & Co Ltd to Rob Way Ltd to whom all monies are due.

Please ensure all correspondence and payments are sent to us as their Solicitors.'

Does this have any affect on anything?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
I would say just make certain all your arguments are watertight. You have all the paperwork you require. Plus a spare bundle just in case the DJ loses his copy ??

 

I am still trying to find out if the assignment that you and Robin received will affect anything.

 

Hi does anyone have an update on the assignment please?

 

Reading through some threads it says a witness statement must be received by the court 7 days before the hearing. Is this the case only if you are defending, not if you have made the application? (Panic mode again :oops:)

When the 7 days arrive, is it ok to phone court, due to postal strike;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just phoned court nothing logged on the system other than a change of name.

She was very helpful, suggested that we should have been copied everything, also that DJ will be aware that we are LIP and listen carefully to everything they say and make notes! Also make sure that if they do spring documents on the day, make sure DJ knows this.

Hope they are nice

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to stupid question time

I'm preparing everything for my SJ hearing, I have copies of the following, is this too much?

2 defective dn and letter terminating a/c from Cap1

letters from RW saying have providd CCA and don't ned to have more contact.

short applicn form

t&c from a different document

a letter stating they are wholly responsible for administering a/c (2 yrs after payments started to them) NO noa

copies od cpr 16.2, 16.4, 24.2, CCA 87, 60, 65 and 127,

copy of 31.14

other letters pointing out that it is a cc, not b/ac and needs cca

So back to my original question, is this too much information and would it help them in their attack if I fail?

Thank you, C

Link to post
Share on other sites

POC

'THe claimant claims outstanding monies due and payable by the defendant under a credit agreementwhereby the defendant agreed to repay with interest the value of the credit obtained.

 

And the claimant claims

1. The sum of XXXX

2. Interest pursuant to s69 of the County Court Act 1984 at the rate of 8% from xxxx03 to date hereof xxxx days is the sum of xxx.xx

3. Future interest accruing at the daily rate of .41

4. Costs'

 

I've said that POC is insufficient, could someone please give me some law or cases to back this up please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bother to make any bundles? Nothing was referred to or looked at!

Ignorant, arrogant, rude and superior were the first words uttered when we left the room.

He had made his decision before we went in and said early on he wouldn't be awarding SJ.

Everything I had as supporting evidence 'was part of the defence and not for now'.

The positives were I could talk, though oh would probably have come across better (if slightly lacking in knowledge); new poc and no costs because poc were terrible 'if this carries on I may start issuing SJs for pocs like this!!!!

New poc: date of agreement (no won't ask for copy, if they give a date that is when you signed it, even though I said never received a copy)

copy of noa

copy of dn.

Did say with no noa, there is no case....... so gave time for one.

They have 14 days then we have 14 days.

Atleast oh is now getting invloved:eek: instead of leaving everything to me.

Hurray, it's the same dj for our [problem] case:mad: oh ***t

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes what really bugged me, apart from the fact that all our 'evidence' was defence and that the dj had already made his mind up, was the fact that he was a 'jobbing' solicitor who couldn't really answer the questions.

My mouth was in my heart when he said that as we had failed could he have costs; but it was good to hear the 'with pocs like that no'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...