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
      • 162 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

Bald tyres in the case of non fault claim


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5543 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

Hi, first post, wish it was a happier subject and really hope ther are some answers

 

I had a collision on sunday with a car coming into my lane with locked brakes trying to avoide the car infront of them.

I had to mount the kerb to aviod a head on. resulting in a bust passenger wheel and a right off due to the oncoming car taking my drivers side out from front wheel arch to back wheel arch.

On further inspection, it has come to light that both my front tyres are bald on the inside but not down to the meshing. i'm not sure if it is within the 12.5% legal limit. the rest of the tyres are over 1.6.

Now, as the claim is not my fault, and i have a witness. What stance could my insurance company take in regard to the tyres? Will my insurance be void? and therefore, no claim upheald against the motorist who drove into me.

Any help would be greatly recieved. thank you very much

Link to post
Share on other sites

if the tyres did not contribute to the accident in anyway then it should be regarded as a separate matter. However I've no doubt that if they find out about the tyres then they are likely to try and leverage against you. You will have to be more persistent.

 

You should also not drive with your vehicle in unroadworthy condition

Link to post
Share on other sites

if the tyres did not contribute to the accident in anyway then it should be regarded as a separate matter. However I've no doubt that if they find out about the tyres then they are likely to try and leverage against you. You will have to be more persistent.

 

You should also not drive with your vehicle in unroadworthy condition

 

i completly agree. and i am fully to blame in that respect due to not checking the inner tread when checking the middle with a ten pence piece. And nievety is not an excuse

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...