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

Strange letter from SLC...


PriorityOne
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5278 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

I've just received a letter from these people re. a loan that I took out as a mature student some years ago. I've not made payments on this loan as yet because my earnings didn't go over the £15,500 threshold until recently; I was promoted in September which has now taken me over this figure.

 

I assumed that Inland Revenue would forward these details on directly, but instead they've told SLC that I am "no longer employed or in receoipt of any taxable Benefit" :confused:

 

I've been in full-time employment since 2006 and have am still receiving Child Tax Credits until approx. August this year; when my daughter finishes F/T education. Have they gone mad?

 

The now want me to tell them how I support myself financially and send in pay slips, etc.

 

Is this... erm.... normal?! :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy New Year!! :D

 

I'm not comfortable about sending them off, that's for sure.... I always thought they could access a person's income anyway through their links with IR. They also have my NI number and date of birth.... and I've been in f/t work since 2006.

 

Anyway, they want a reply within 28 days or I will incur any charges it costs them to find out the info. for themselves and a penalty of £150.... I don't bl**dy think so... They want payslips, employment details, paroll ref., how long I've been there, a completed DD form and the colour of my underwear.

 

That last one was a joke... :p

 

Is this standard practice for SLC? Are they thick or something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I obviously had too much booze last night.... 'coz have re-read what was sent. They only want DD details and payslip info. if I'm an overseas student or was planning on going overseas.

 

All they're actually asking for are my PAYE details from the paylip, how long I've worked at my current job, the address details and gross income.... which I assume is ok to provide.

 

Duh...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...