Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • if the agreement was taken out jan 23, then she has not reached the 1/3rd mark so the car has not become protected goods under the consumer credit act.  this puts her in a very very vulnerable position regarding ever keeping the car....whereby once they have issued a default notice they can legally send a guy with a flatbed (though they are NOT BAILIFFS and have ZERO legal powers) to collect the car.  if the car is kept on the public highway then they can simply take it away and she will legally owe the whole stated amount on the agreement AND lose the car. if it's on private property i'e like a driveway, ok they shouldn't take it without her agreeing, but if they do, it's not really on but its better than a court case and an inevitable loss with the granting a return of goods order. are these 'health reasons' likely to resolve themselves in the very short term (like a couple of months?) and can she immediately begin working again ? i'e has she got a job or would have to find one?  answer the above and we'll try and help. but she looks to be between rock and a hard place . whatever happens she will still have to pay the loan off...car or no car....unless you can appeal to the finance company's better nature using health reasons to back off for xxx months.
    • no need to use it. it doubles the size of the thread and makes it very diff to find replies on small screens too. just like @username it - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread already inc you ...gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.
    • Hello all,   I ordered a laptop online about 16 months ago. The laptop was faulty and I was supposed to send it back within guarantee but didn't for various reasons. I contacted the company a few months later and they said they will still fix it for me free of charge but I'd have to pay to send it to them and they will pay to send it back to me. The parcel arrived there fine. Company had fixed it and they sent it via dpd. I was working in the office so I asked my neighbours who would be in, as there's been a history of parcel thefts on our street. I had 2 neighbours who offered but when I went to update delivery instructions, their door number wasn't on the drop down despite sharing the same post code.  I then selected a neighbour who I thought would likely be in and also selected other in the safe place selection and put the number of the neighbour who I knew would definitely be in and they left my parcel outside and the parcel was stolen. DPD didn't want to deal with me and said I need to speak to the retailer. The retailer said DPD have special instructions from them not to leave a parcel outside unless specified by a customer. The retailer then said they could see my instructions said leave in a safe space but I have no porch. My front door just opens onto the road and the driver made no attempt to conceal it.  Anyway, I would like to know if I have rights here because the delivery wasn't for an item that I just bought. It was initially delivered but stopped working within the warranty period and they agreed to fix it for free.  Appreciate your help 🙏🏼   Thanks!
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Welcome - illegal repo in contravention of section 92 and unfair relationship ** WON **


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4293 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 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Is there new case law? or has it been dealt with outside of court?

One thing I will say on open forum is that this case will never be dealt with outside of court. With regard compensation, damages or costs, there is no amount of money that will ever be enough to cover what welcome finance have done to me and hundreds of thousands of others. Lives have been ruined, relationships lost, health destroyed and suicides contemplated because of the immoral and unlawful standards these kind of people and their associates employ.

 

The only recompense that will ever suffice is justice.

 

And that is my opinion...which I am fully entitled to express anywhere I see fit. The last time I checked I believed we still had free speech in this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And...I just got my FSCS letter! How absurd this all is, they spent all that time in court saying it wasn't welcome that sold me the policy and so I couldn't claim misselling against them and then they go and send me a letter saying they believe the policy THEY sold me may have been missold!

 

Yet more voluntary ammunition for the credibility issue....

Link to post
Share on other sites

They sent me one of those - but when i argued the toss over it i was told they had made an error and i had no grounds as the insurance was sold by a broker and not them - i have similar issues to those you had.

 

They are muppets.

Hmmm... how far along with the process are you? Is it at court stage yet?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No not yet - have another case in court at the moment that is taking up a lot of time.

 

funily enough welcome are a third party - but not in court - have evidence that they have been less than honest and misleading - so OFT are looking into it as part of this other case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No not yet - have another case in court at the moment that is taking up a lot of time.

 

funily enough welcome are a third party - but not in court - have evidence that they have been less than honest and misleading - so OFT are looking into it as part of this other case.

That's great! If you have evidence that they have behaved dishonestly then they deserve to be called up on it.

If you do ever want to take it further with welcome then I am more than happy to share my experiences with you ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well I have finally received the approved transcript of the High Court Judgment :-D

Does anybody have any ideas of how I might be permitted to distribute it? I suppose now it is approved there aren't any restrictions on what I can do with it??

 

The other side have made it clear that this thread is no longer anonymous, by the way :madgrin:

 

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would but I only just received it hard copy today, hopefully I can get it in doc on Monday from the transcribers.

It is quite exquisite! It's got some wonderful phrases in it ;-)

 

"If there was a relevant agency relationship, the decision in Hurstanger Ltd v Wilson & Anor..., shows that causation is not a factor where a person makes a secret payment to an agent"

 

"I have concluded that although the claimant's grounds of appeal are framed by her as a lay person, they do disclose and have disclosed a matter which requires this judgment to be set aside...."

 

"However, in the light of what has happened, there is no point or purpose now in an injunction. The remedy for this lady is one in damages..." - ( Section 92)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done wannabe - Once the Judgement is handed down it becomes public.

 

Your victory could not have been against a company more deserving a kicking. The only company i know who are nearly as dishonest as HFO.

Edited by dadofholly
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok sorry about the odd font sizing but here we go!

 

My name is Mrs Surita Caleini, formerly Whittington, and this is the transcript of my successful appeal in Birmingham High Court of Justice on 11th July 2011 before The Honourable Lord Justice Beatson QC.

 

img013.jpg

img014.jpg

img015.jpg

img016.jpg

img017.jpg

img018.jpg

img019.jpg

img020.jpg

img021.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...