Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

charges appeal goes with the banks!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5277 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 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

i am not at all surprised only yesterday it was announced that 2 banks had taken billions of pounds in government loans last month, there was no way in this economic climate that this gov. was going to put the banks into the position of having to refund billions of pounds in charges. if this had happened before the banking disaster i think that the banks would have lost, but now there is no chance..

Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC News - Banks win Supreme Court case on overdraft charges

 

Unbelievable, it just shows that these unelected Lords serve no real purpose whatsoever and are (allegedly) as buyable as any other MP

 

I should be grateful that I got my claim in against Halifax Credit Card when I did.

 

However, even though the OFT has lost the case, don't forget it still states in the CPUTR that charges must be representative of their costs and to date, no financial institution has come forward to state exactly what it costs them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an email from Nat West this morning advising me of a change in my banking conditions. All my charges seem to have been cut to around £5 and no more massive daily charges but limited to smaller amounts in any one period.

 

Do you think deals have been made with the banks to save them from refunding billions if they now set realistic charges??

The Grand essentials of happiness are: something to do, something to love, and something to hope for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the official press release here: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0070_ps.pdf

 

The full judgment has not been posted yet.

 

[edit] Here it is: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0070_judgmentV2.pdf

Edited by Virus

7/2/07 - Full unconditional settlement + £50 for taking time off work :D

________________________

Listen while you read the threads:

My Music8-)

More Music

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court had to decide not whether the banks’ charges for unauthorised overdrafts were fair but whether the OFT could launch an

investigation into whether they were fair.

 

 

The court decided that although the interpretation of the European directive which the Regulations implemented was a question of European law it was not necessary to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice (Paras 49, 91, 115, 120).

 

However, the charges might still be open to assessment by the OFT on other grounds under Regulation 5.

 

Looks far from a victory for the banks to me

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speechless. Just cannot believe it, and no room for a european court appeal so obviously they had no confidence in their own judgement that it would stand up to further investigation.:shock:

If I have helped then please click on my scales.

 

Ulster bank

---------------------------------------------------

05/10/06 DPR letter sent

06/11/06 Request of repayment sent £1186.06

20/11/06 Repayment deadline

21/11/06 LBA sent

25/11/06 £90 goodwill gesture letter received

06/12/06 LBA deadline

09/12/06 Received final response to claim

I will register smallclaim in new year once Jan paycheque is in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Banks are robbing B******s

 

They gamble on speculatiative deals and when they cock up we have to bail them out yet they still get their inflated salaries and bonuses.

 

Go £1 over and they charge you £30 for being overdrawn £30 for not paying a DD plus £30 for telling you they are not going to pay the DD

 

GREEDY GREEDY SCUMBAGS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...