Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

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

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

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

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.
Latest activity

Are European Court of Human Rights precedents binding on U.K Law?

roony

By roony
in General Consumer Issues

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5269 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

roony

roony

Posted
Posted

Hi,

I was wondering if ECHR precedents are binding in the U.K, if so what happens if legislation or law, violates those precedents?

 

 

Also is EU law going to over take existing British Law?

 

thnx

Link to post
Share on other sites
ErikaPNP

ErikaPNP

Posted
Posted

Yes they are binding. If UK legislation is not compatible with ECHR a "declaration of incompatibility" is issued.

 

If a court makes a declaration of incompatibility (or if the European Court of Human Rights holds that a statute infringes the ECHR), the government has power to amend or repeal statutes by order.

 

EU law is not taking over British law.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
roony

roony

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Thnx for the replies, so if ECHR precedents are binding ...

 

And since the U.K has been subject to ECHR law since 1961, then why do we have sections 43, 44, 53 of the terrorism act & socpa, all of which violate european human right law?

 

 

Also isnt Britain due to come under EU law after may 2010?

 

I read European parliaments are supposed to supercede UK parliament after may 2010, ill have to look up specifics, but thats basically what i read.

 

Also what remedy do we have, if charged under law which violate european human right precedents, such as section 44?

 

thnx

Edited by roony
Link to post
Share on other sites
mightymouse_69

mightymouse_69

Posted
Posted
Thnx for the replies, so if ECHR precedents are binding ...

 

And since the U.K has been subject to ECHR law since 1961, then why do we have sections 43, 44, 53 of the terrorism act & socpa, all of which violate european human right law?

 

Domestic courts must interpret domestic law inline with EU law. If they are unable to do this, they declare the law incompatible.

 

Sometimes, the state can obtain a derrorgation order, allowing them to essentially ignore a provision in the ECHR... especially when the matter concerns national security.

 

Why do you feel the sections you gave violate human right law?

 

Also isnt Britain due to come under EU law after may 2010?

 

I read European parliaments are supposed to supercede UK parliament after may 2010, ill have to look up specifics, but thats basically what i read.

 

The Daily Mail may believe this to be so, but as far as i am aware nothing this major is happening.

 

Also what remedy do we have, if charged under law which violate european human right precedents, such as section 44?

 

thnx

 

If you feel you are charged under a law that violates your rights under the ECHR, there is option to appeal (after seeking legal advice). You do not have to go to Strasbourg now... however the option to travel there is available.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ErikaPNP

ErikaPNP

Posted
Posted

Britain became a member of the EU in 1973. Since the UK joined the European Economic Community in 1973, the treaties themselves, legislation passed under them, and the rulings of the European Court of Justice, have all been sources of UK law. The Human Rights Act was made in 1998 and gained royal assent in 2000.

 

In regard to primacy, once an EU-sourced law is applicable in the UK, it would be contrary to the EU treaties for the UK to keep or pass any laws that contradicted the EU-sourced law.

 

National parliaments are provided with a direct say in EU law-making. If one third of national parliaments object to an EU proposal then it can be sent back to whoever made the proposal for it to be reviewed (the yellow card). If a majority of national parliaments oppose a proposal, and the Council or the European Parliament agrees, then it can be struck down (the orange card).

 

The ultimate sovereignty of the UK Parliament is not affected by the UK’s membership of the EU or the Treaty of Lisbon, and the UK can withdraw from the EU if it so wishes.

 

If Eureopean law is replacing UK law this year then I'm surprised (and exceptionally worried) because the law course I'm studying isn't in EU law. None of the degree courses in Scottish or English law commencing this year will lead to a qualification in EU law, although EU law will be incorporated into the learning processes. Universities would not be offereing degree courses which lead to qualifications specifically in English or Scottish Law if the laws were to be replaced entirely with EU law.

 

How does section 44 of the Terrorism act violate human rights? Can't see it myself.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
JonCris

JonCris

Posted
Posted

Erika your reading law yet can't see how section 44 violates the HRA!:eek:

 

On the other-hand it may be the way it is being used AND abused by the authorities which the poster refers to as being at variance with the HRA

Link to post
Share on other sites
mightymouse_69

mightymouse_69

Posted
Posted

 

On the other-hand it may be the way it is being used AND abused by the authorities which the poster refers to as being at variance with the HRA

 

I agree - on face value it seems fine, but in reality its just another excuse for the old bill to snoop around when they feel the need.

 

Remember the OAP labour conference heckler who was taken outside and detained under terrorism laws...:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
ErikaPNP

ErikaPNP

Posted
Posted
Erika your reading law yet can't see how section 44 violates the HRA!:eek:

 

On the other-hand it may be the way it is being used AND abused by the authorities which the poster refers to as being at variance with the HRA

 

On the nail.

 

As far as I am concerned the section in itself doesn't violate the HRA. It is clear within the HRA that some exceptions exist if certain "rights" are not afforded in order to comply with legislation, or public interest.

 

However, if it is being abused then it could absolutely be a violation and should be challanged appropriately as outlined in Section 7 of the HRA.

 

I agree - on face value it seems fine, but in reality its just another excuse for the old bill to snoop around when they feel the need.

 

Indeed. Likewise the HRA is often interperated incorectly by the likes of the Daily Wail, and members of the public to create a scandal where there isn't one.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
mightymouse_69

mightymouse_69

Posted
Posted
Likewise the HRA is often interperated incorectly by the likes of the Daily Wail, and members of the public to create a scandal where there isn't one.

 

Agree 100% with that.

 

Anyway, all this human rights stuff is no good for me at the moment... anyone any good at Trusts and Equity?:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
JonCris

JonCris

Posted
Posted

I'm a great believer in the HRA & think it may be the only thing we have to defeat this state which seems hell bent on attacking our civil rights.

 

Also I think it's a mistake to attack the media as they seem to be the only form of opposition that we have who are prepared to speak out against this government

Link to post
Share on other sites
JonCris

JonCris

Posted
Posted
I was just about to post the same. I'm curious as to how the Home Office and ACPO are going to ignore this recent ruling.

 

 

I guarantee they'll try & fudge the ruling claiming it doesn't actually mean what it states

Link to post
Share on other sites
ErikaPNP

ErikaPNP

Posted
Posted

I did hear of that today - I read the decision of the House of Lords a while back when their appeal to them was dismissed.

 

LJ Brooke dismissed the application for Judical Review in 2003. The Court of Appeal heard it in 2004. This was followed by a further appeal to the House of Lords who unanimously dismissed it in 2006, and now the ECHR has held their appeal. I believe Home Secretary Alan Johnson plans on appealing the ruling by ECHR.

 

The House of Lords decision is here for anyone who wishes to read it: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060308/gillan.pdf

 

I'll reserve my comments until I have read a transcript of the judgement of the ECHR, which is as yet unavailable on the ECHR website.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
haggis1984

haggis1984

Posted
Posted

Tbh im surpsied they're not just taking the same route they did with the DNA retnetion ruling and just ignoring it.

I have no legal qualifications whatsoever, so please check any input I have for accuracy. And please correct me if you disagree!

Link to post
Share on other sites
labrat

labrat

Posted
Posted

its not all stop and searches mind

 

just those under section 44 of the anti terror act i.e. the ones where they havent got any suspicion. e.g. the "im bored" act

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
ErikaPNP

ErikaPNP

Posted
Posted

Oh WOW - thank you Mightymouse - I could not for love or money find it! I'll have a good read when I have some time. Thank you so much for this.

 

I'm learning and find it very interesting to see how ECHR judgements compare and conflict with decisions of the courts before them.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
mightymouse_69

mightymouse_69

Posted
Posted
Oh WOW - thank you Mightymouse - I could not for love or money find it! I'll have a good read when I have some time. Thank you so much for this.

 

I'm learning and find it very interesting to see how ECHR judgements compare and conflict with decisions of the courts before them.

 

Your welcome, i couldnt find it on any of the legal databases (westlaw etc)... at first sight i couldn't even see it on the ECHR site!:-|

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...