Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Update


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6466 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

Apologys for absence, bereavement in the family. Hope someone can advise. The bank (Abbey) received my letter for information relating to bankcharges for past 6 yrs on 06/07/06. They adviced on 10/07/06 that they do not hold data on their systems dating back 6yrs, but would supply the data they hold within 40 days. They added any earlier transactions have been archived onto microfishe, which is not covered by the Data Protection Act. These archived transactions will not therefore be supplied to me under the Data Protection Act and will not be subject to the 40 day ruling (40 days expires 19/08/06) They so far sent 13 mths of duplicate bank statements,when i compared them to originals i kept,i noted the information of charges data not printed as listed on the original. I wrote a letter to voice my disgust at this and they replied this could not be helped. In the meantime i forgot to cancel a standing order to a relatives abbey acct, i had £74.81 in the bank and they authorised this £100 S/Oleaving my acct overdrawn. I sent a written complaint against this as thye have charged me £50 for what they say is another transaction for £9.87 which they authorised when insufficent funds existed, but according to the bank statement that transaction occured prior to the £100 S/O. As mentioned i have complained and advised the bank i will not continue to pay my salary into this current acct, thus not pay tthis latest charge as a matter of principle.

 

Can anyone advise if i have jepordised my bank charges request and was i correct not to ensure funds were available to pay the latest charges as i have done for the past 6 yrs, the bank acknowledged my complaint and will 'investigate the issue' In addition is the bank correct re: the archived data not being subject to the DPA?

 

Thanks for any reply, i now have the time to read the info on this site and contribute appropriately...Regards Lenka44

Link to post
Share on other sites

See your other thread.....

DONT FORGET TO DONATE TO THIS SITE WHEN YOU WIN THANKYOU

If you dont it wont be here:x

 

Let battle commence!!!!!:mad:

All advice and opinions given by people on this site are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

 

I had the same from Abbey - 13 months of statements with no charges listed and was told I would have to pay for any more as they were on microfiche. I contacted the Information Comissioner's Office to ask if microfiche records weren't covered under the data protection act and they advised me to make a complaint against Abbey. I've done this and have recently heard back from the ICO to tell me they are going in to see Abbey on 6 September. They also say that they have assigned a team of 3 people to inspect Abbey's microfiche records to deterine whether or not they fall under the scope of the Act.

 

Keep on their back!

 

KS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for info,like many of us, this whole scenario is new to me, to date Abbey have not requested further payment, however i will follow your instructions.

 

Lenka44:oops:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...