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.

Curious twist on two CCA requests-they are taking me to Court!

Laiste

By Laiste
in Historic Bank Claims

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6052 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

rippedoffagain

rippedoffagain

Posted
Posted

Good luck.

Please note: I give advice, in good faith, based on my reading and experience. Please satisfy yourself, that any advice given is accurate in content before acting upon it.

A to Z index

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/site-questions-suggestions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

...........................................................................

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 350
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Battleaxe

Guest Battleaxe

Posted
Posted

I will be thinking of you Laiste. Take a deep breath and let it happen. You are in your own comfort zone. I look forward to your update.

Soft hugs

Link to post
Share on other sites
Laiste

Laiste

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi Lantana,

 

Not in the pub celebrating, just about to open a bottle of wine for reasons of despondency:sad: and fury!:mad:

 

To be honest I'm surprised I've been able to put fingers to the keyboard given how mad I am! The Judge wasn't at all interested in when HFC received the Crt Order and the fact they lied. Wasn't interested in whether a telephone call took place or not, of course as you know it didn't and yet again...they lied!

 

He has let them unilaterally take off the penalty charges and collection charge, without the issue being examined at trial. The conversation from start to finish was a (I'll settle for) b****y joke, don't want to get censured by the mods! He made some very bizarre comments which I will be able to quote verbatim as soon as I get a transcript of the call, which we're entitled to.

 

Just to give you a flavour of his perspective on things, the only valid issues which are examinable at trial are:-

 

1. Whether there is a valid agreement.

2. Whether it has been breached

3. Whether the claimants are entitled to enforce.

 

This statement isn't verbatim, but in response to my comment that the charges are an express term of HFC's contract, present since the contract's inception and need to addressed at trial, along with the interest levied on said charges and that I intend to claim damages under consumer regs 99, he said the fact that the claimants have abandoned that part of the claim, means that issue is closed!!! I really pushed him on these issues and at one stage he actually said (in relation to the charges) that the Crt is not going to be used as a "public relations exercise!" What???:mad: :mad: He kept on referring to the OFT's ruling on charges and the £12 fee. I pointed out, whether or not this is fair has to be tested in Crt!

 

At one point he even made the loaded comment that the shareholders of HFC deserve to have the credit limit observed and an outstanding debt paid! Sounds like judgment before a trial to me!!!

 

He was irritated by me, it was obvious. I put everything to him in a polite, reasoned but firm manner, but I got the distinct impression that nothing I said was going to make a jot of difference!

 

The only sanction against them for merely filing their App Notice late is costs in the case, that's it!

 

I am not a happy bunny at the moment as you can imagine, what took place this afternoon was an absolute farce!

 

I'll stay around to here everyone's comments. By the way, both my husband and I really appreciate the great supportive comments posted last night and this morning!:)

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Laiste

Laiste

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi Lantana,

 

Sadly no! We've opened the wine due to despondency:sad: and fury!:mad:

 

The abridged version of the farce that was the telephone hearing, is that the Judge in my view was biased in their favour and apparently them lying on numerous occasions is irrelevant to the case!

 

He made some bizarre comments, which when I obtain the transcript of the call I will post verbatim, you will not believe the things he said! I nearly laughed at various points in the call because of his preposterous comments. What he said will certainly raise eyebrows!

 

The following comments are what he said a few minutes into the call, which for me strongly suggested we were headed for trouble.....

 

The only points at issue are:-

 

1. Whether there is a valid agreement

2. Whether it has been breached

3. Whether the claimants are entitled to enforce the agreement.

 

The charges have been deducted by HFC, he's entirely happy with that, despite my many protestations from many different angles that they must be examined at trial. I intended to claim over interest charged on the penalties and claim damages under the consumer regs 1999. He has put paid to that. Collection charge has been taken off by HFC, that's also fine as well apparently!

 

I pressed the issue of the charges and he kept quoting the OFT and the new revised limit of £12. I pointed out that whether this amount is a reflection of their true cost has to be examined at trial. He was obviously p****d off with me at this stage and said that the Crt would not be used as a to quote him, "public relations exercise!" What??? Run that by me again....! So compelling HFC to justify their charges at trial is nothing more than a publicity stunt??? Perhaps he knows I'm a member of CAG and is expecting me to appear on Tonight with Trevor Macdonald???;)

 

He spoke about doing justice between the parties; well what happened this afternoon was not by any stretch of the imagination an example of that!:mad: The principles of the CPR and the overriding objective in my view were put to one side this afternoon in favour of prejudice, illogicality and judicial madness!

 

Thanks everyone for your supportive comments last night and this morning, we both really appreciate it!

 

I'll hang around to here what people have to say and respond hopefully soberly!;)

 

Laiste.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
rippedoffagain

rippedoffagain

Posted
Posted

Commiserations Laiste

Please note: I give advice, in good faith, based on my reading and experience. Please satisfy yourself, that any advice given is accurate in content before acting upon it.

A to Z index

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/site-questions-suggestions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

...........................................................................

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Lantana

The Lantana

Posted
Posted

That's truly shocking Laiste. I would have thought the Judge would at least rant at the other side concerning their contempt.

 

The unlawful charges amount to a breach so surely, by his own point (2) above, must be examined. He's contradicting himself.

 

I'm despondent in sympathy.

 

Regards

 

Lantana

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cornucopia

Cornucopia

Posted
Posted
Hi Lantana,

 

Sadly no! We've opened the wine due to despondency:sad: and fury!:mad:

 

The abridged version of the farce that was the telephone hearing, is that the Judge in my view was biased in their favour and apparently them lying on numerous occasions is irrelevant to the case!

 

He made some bizarre comments, which when I obtain the transcript of the call I will post verbatim, you will not believe the things he said! I nearly laughed at various points in the call because of his preposterous comments. What he said will certainly raise eyebrows!

 

The following comments are what he said a few minutes into the call, which for me strongly suggested we were headed for trouble.....

 

The only points at issue are:-

 

1. Whether there is a valid agreement

2. Whether it has been breached

3. Whether the claimants are entitled to enforce the agreement.

 

The charges have been deducted by HFC, he's entirely happy with that, despite my many protestations from many different angles that they must be examined at trial. I intended to claim over interest charged on the penalties and claim damages under the consumer regs 1999. He has put paid to that. Collection charge has been taken off by HFC, that's also fine as well apparently!

 

I pressed the issue of the charges and he kept quoting the OFT and the new revised limit of £12. I pointed out that whether this amount is a reflection of their true cost has to be examined at trial. He was obviously p****d off with me at this stage and said that the Crt would not be used as a to quote him, "public relations exercise!" What??? Run that by me again....! So compelling HFC to justify their charges at trial is nothing more than a publicity stunt??? Perhaps he knows I'm a member of CAG and is expecting me to appear on Tonight with Trevor Macdonald???;)

 

He spoke about doing justice between the parties; well what happened this afternoon was not by any stretch of the imagination an example of that!:mad: The principles of the CPR and the overriding objective in my view were put to one side this afternoon in favour of prejudice, illogicality and judicial madness!

 

Thanks everyone for your supportive comments last night and this morning, we both really appreciate it!

 

I'll hang around to here what people have to say and respond hopefully soberly!;)

 

Laiste.:)

 

Hello Laiste,

 

I am sorry to hear of how it went today. I am not sure what to say, are you going to appeal, is there leave to do that?

 

I am assuming that this has come about because they were actually able to produce your agreement and statements.

 

I hope JonCris will be able to come on an offer some advice.

 

With best wishes,

 

Cornucopia

CLICK ON THE SCALES IF YOU THINK I HAVE HELPED!

 

I AM NOT SCARED ANYMORE!:rolleyes:

 

MBNA - To quote "The Carpenters", We've Only Just Begun..................;):D

HSBC - Settled.

Capital One - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued.

Goldfish - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued.

Tesco - SAR issued.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rippedoffagain

rippedoffagain

Posted
Posted

Hi Laiste,

 

Your post76

As for HFC, they are also now in possession of the counter-claim and the trial is scheduled for the 9th January 2007. They are going to try and enforce a debt with a copy agreement that is illegible!

 

Did this issue come up?

Please note: I give advice, in good faith, based on my reading and experience. Please satisfy yourself, that any advice given is accurate in content before acting upon it.

A to Z index

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/site-questions-suggestions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

...........................................................................

Link to post
Share on other sites
noomill060

noomill060

Posted
Posted

Thats what was puzzling me.

 

Did the judge actually make any decisions as to:

 

 

 

1. Whether there is a valid agreement

2. Whether it has been breached

3. Whether the claimants are entitled to enforce the agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Laiste

Laiste

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Sorry if I didn't fully clarify, those 3 points are the issues that are examinable at the trial. The April date for the trial has been vacated today and the trial window is now mid May-1st wk in June.

 

We didn't discuss the illegibility of the agreement, that's a matter for trial.

 

I am presently considering an appeal, which will be considered by a Circuit Judge (who is senior to a District Judge). We're not going to the High Court just yet!;) I have by no means finished with the issues that SHOULD have been under discussion today! This is just a setback, a thoroughly annoying setback, but that's all it is!

 

It's really great to talk to you all because I know you understand or have an appreciation of my frustration! I'm even more determined to get my law degree now to help others, after today! I don't believe I'm overly sensitive but I had that overwhelming sense that he thought my views were invalid because I'm not a qualified sol/barrister. I knew I had made valid points because he started to get arsey with me! I'm no gibbering idiot, he simply would not listen and kept interrupting me! His decision was made before the start of the call....!

 

Laiste.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
PriorityOne

PriorityOne

Posted
Posted

I'm so sorry, Laiste... I was so sure you would have had some good news on here tonight. It sounds like they are all part of the old boys' club.... nothing would surprise me actually.

 

Get some rest and try not to let this deter you from your goals.... you are a real fighter and a true inspiration... this was only Round 1.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rippedoffagain

rippedoffagain

Posted
Posted

Or perhaps the judge didn't want to give them grounds for appeal, should they lose.

Please note: I give advice, in good faith, based on my reading and experience. Please satisfy yourself, that any advice given is accurate in content before acting upon it.

A to Z index

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/site-questions-suggestions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

...........................................................................

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cornucopia

Cornucopia

Posted
Posted
That's better Laiste - just a battle lost, now you can go on and win the war! Well done on what you have achieved so far. Don't be negative about today, just look towards your next actions and how you can still win this.

 

Go get 'em!

 

I'm with you Jones on that one, I hadn't realised this was actually the first part, it seemed to me that the Judge had agreed that yes, they return your charges but had struck out the legalities of your original agreement and it seems this is not the case!

 

There is cause for celebration, this is only a hiccup and there is also plenty of time for a solid case to be built before trial.

 

I wish I had some wine.:(:D

CLICK ON THE SCALES IF YOU THINK I HAVE HELPED!

 

I AM NOT SCARED ANYMORE!:rolleyes:

 

MBNA - To quote "The Carpenters", We've Only Just Begun..................;):D

HSBC - Settled.

Capital One - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued.

Goldfish - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued.

Tesco - SAR issued.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cornucopia

Cornucopia

Posted
Posted
Me too, Monday & Tuesday are my days off alcohol! At least my football team won tonight so something to smile about.

 

Blimey, only Monday's and Tuesday's!!! Your poor liver! LOL! Which football team would that be then?!:rolleyes:

CLICK ON THE SCALES IF YOU THINK I HAVE HELPED!

 

I AM NOT SCARED ANYMORE!:rolleyes:

 

MBNA - To quote "The Carpenters", We've Only Just Begun..................;):D

HSBC - Settled.

Capital One - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued.

Goldfish - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued.

Tesco - SAR issued.

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...