Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • TINY applies here... tough It's Now Yours.  its a person to person private sale  it's not covered by any rules/regulations at all. even if the MOT was fraud a county court claim is not the place to address this issue and most certainly not using the seller as any defendant against such, nor using it as an excuse to try and get out of buying the car and getting a refund. the claim is a dead duck. simply do AOS and file a defence stating this was a private sale between 2 private individuals, the car was test driven and the buyer found no faults nor were any aware of by the seller. dx
    • You can try & persuade them not to prosecute even up to minutes before the case is heard, approaching the prosecutor on the day. IF they agree, you’d have to be able to settle the agreed amount there and then, not by payment plan. You may find it hard to persuade them, but no harm in trying if your aim is to avoid a criminal conviction (which isn’t the end of then world…. Check out the NACRO and Unlock websites) if you don’t get offered an admission instructive settlement and it goes in front of the Magistrates Bench it will no longer matter about persuading TfL you won’t reoffend The circumstances might be offered to the Magistrates in mitigation, but in terms of if they find you guilty or not, it will be in the facts of if you failed to show a valid ticket when asked (which you didn’t, and it doesn’t seem you have any of the statutory defences, so a conviction seems inevitable IF TfL don’t agree an administrative settlement as an alternative to prosecution)
    • copy of some lease pages-compressed.pdfHello Lolerz I have uploded some pages of the lease. Working on some other paperwork but only have my phone so finding it slow.  
    • Thankyou very much for your help. There was no oil leak when it went for the mot and the buyer said the oil leak was after it broke down so around 10 days after he bought it. He said it had been taken to a garage who said the car had the hole in the engine block and believed it was a fraudulent mot. But we haven't seen any report.
    • no intrepid has exceeded the std user allocation space on the server with soo many threads and soo many giant uploads. this has happened twice before ive not the time to scroll thru old threads and delete previous uploads to free space, but thats whats needed by a mod dx
  • 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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...