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 5391 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

Back in 2007 I had a business and we rented some offices from a rather large company owned by an old Billionaire. Unfortunately the business failed after about 6 months and we vacated the premises. During the period it was empty until they could find tenants said company billed me for the rent. I was unable to pay this and they eventually took me to court. I admitted the dwebt and explained the circumstances and for whatever reason it was ordered I pay back the debt at £20 a month via Martsons

 

The debt was originally for £3000 + £220 costs. I've paid every month for the last 18 months or so. However, due to difficulties some payments have been late (but always paid) and other times I've had Marstons accuse me of being in arrears when clearly I haven't

 

Yesterday I received a text saying they were going to seize my goods. This morning I received a letter saying they're sending removal contractors. As far as I know I'm not in arrears, in fact I recall making a payment in August and I made another today just to make sure. What's infuriating though is the letter I received this morning says I now owe £4000. That's over £800 more than the original debt AFTER I've been making regular payments.

 

Where do I stand on this? As this is a personal debt do they have any right to break in and seize goods? I don't even understand how they got a judgement, it's an unsecured debt for office rent for a failed business. You'd have expected it to be written off.

 

What's the best way of dealing with this and is there anything I can do to cancel the debt? It's ridiculous. The office rent was £12k a year, the business went tits and despite the office being vacant for 3 months I'm expected to pay for rent because they couldn't find anyone to take it on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was you a ltd company?

 

and what was the terms of the lease as in what notice did you have to give.

 

LFB

 

Was a sole trader when I signed up but changed to Ltd company about a month later. I was told we could get out of the lease after 6 months.

 

I'm trying to find all documents related to all this but struggling to find them all which is frustrating.

 

Took on the offices in April 07 and vacated Oct 07

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Marstons should be shot for this one, if it is a limited company you are NOT liable for the rent debt, you need to get some proper legal advice on this pronto, or contact Tomtubby on this site, they are the bailiff expert and have plenty of experience with Marstons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The cager signed as a sole trader.

 

did you inform the landlord that you had gone LTD if so did you inform the landlord.

 

LFB

 

 

Yes, I explained everything to them. you'd think they'd have been understanding. I guess not. This company are a rather large trust based up in the northern part of the country owned by a billionaire who has more than enough cash but is notorious for not actually investing any money into his investments and allowing them to fall into ruin and disrepair all the whilst taking subsidies from local councils.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...