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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4962 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

  • 2 weeks later...

I think it is highly unlikely that you will ever see court papers, the [problem] works by scaring people into paying. If you do get court papers, don't worry, there are a million defences;)

 

Do expect to receive a few more threatograms from them though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The legal advice I obtained wasn't very useful and they've basically told me that it would be more costly to me getting a solicitor to work on behalf of me than to pay the £500! Any advice would be greatly received.

 

This is precisely why they set the amount at the level that they do, low enough to make legal advice not an option, and not so high as to make sure that nobody will pay. It is using the legal system as a form of blackmail :mad:

 

Having said that, you really don't need a solicitor. ACS (and their predecessors Davenport Lyons) have sent out in the tens of thousands of these letters, and so far all they have done is cherry picked a tiny handful of cases that they have managed to get default judgement on. And even with those there are some doubts as to whether they were "genuine" cases, or whether it was all staged in order to claim in press releases that they had won court cases. Nobody who has shown the slightest willingness to contest the claim has yet been taken to court, and they never will be IMO. If they lose in court, and so far as I can see they have no real evidence of anything at all, then it's game over for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

They will keep on sending you letters for a while, that's standard practice :(

 

You can either send them another letter of denial, or just ignore them. I suspect you'll get another threatogram or two whatever you do, but I'd be very surprised if it went any further than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Hi sorry I dont know what subbing to this thread means, can you explain. Also I contacted my ISP Tiscali they said they have never released any information about me, they have never heard of ACS either. They advised me to send the letters that I had received and would pass them on to the their Fraud Dept. I suggest everyone does the same.

 

That's the sort of idiotic reply that I'd expect from Tiscali :( They have given out your information, they were ordered to by a court. That's one of the many things that is wrong here, ACS have gone olong to a court saying "Icy1 and others have been downloading copyright material and we want his or her details" and the judge has just ordered ISPs to give it out without any evidence being shown that anybody has actually downloaded anything at all, let alone whether it is actually copyrighted. And ISPs like Tiscali don't make themelves look any better by lying about it afterwards :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...