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
      • 160 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

The Test Case: where it all went wrong


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5004 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

Aequitas, I am going to ask what so many have asked, but you never answer: Why are you here? All you have ever done is try to put people off, pour derision and scorn on any of the legal arguments which didn't fit your beliefs, and now crow about how you were right and we were wrong in a none too subtle manner. Have you actually applied that legal knowledge of yours to try and assist people instead of trying to discourage them? Wouldn't THAT be a better use of your time, energy and legal knowledge? :-?

 

I think I have answered your question on more than one occasion. Indeed in my very first post, which was in this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/92975-bank-charges-penalties.html I said "I think they [the points in red above] bear examination and that is why I signed up." Also, in post 41 of the same thread I said: "When I made my first post it was with the very specific purpose of suggesting that concentrating on insisting that bank charges are penalties is not the best way forward to get bank charges reduced, and, with that end in view, explained why I did not think bank charges were penalties."

 

I also said in my first post "I am against the high level of charges made by banks." I have had to repeat that constantly and there are no doubt still some who do not believe it.

 

Since I am human, and particularly after being vilified by of some Caggers, I freely admit that I could not help feeling some satisfaction when the legal arguments I put forward back in May 2007 were endorsed by the courts. I do not think though that I have engaged in any triumphalism. If you knew me you would say I was one of the least arrogant people you knew. If any arrogance has come across in any post I have made I would suggest, with respect, that it is imagined and arises from the reader's understandable annoyance that I was after all right.

 

I have freely conceded that my observation that any first year law student could have worked out that bank charges were not contractual penalties was ill-advised. Thinking about it I ought to have said: the idea that bank charges are contractual penalties was worth looking at, but anyone who knew the relevant law and considered the idea would have concluded it was untenable. If I made the observation it was out of frustration which I have often felt when trying to discuss the law on bank charges on this forum when few seemed willing to give even a moment's consideration to the points I was trying to make or, with one notable exception, to concede, however grudgingly, that I may perhaps after all have been on the right track.

 

And that is all I have ever tried to do: to engage people in a purely legal argument. People, rightly seething with justified indignation at the unfairness of it all, were however unwilling to consider that their view of the law was open to question.

 

If I had nothing positive to offer it was in part that I was concentrating on urging people to consider whether the legal arguments they were advancing were sustainable, but mainly because I could see no clear way forward for individuals to challenge bank charges. I did however suggest, as did Lady Hale, that the answer may lie in the fact that the consumer has no real choice. Whether the CCA has the answer I do not know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An answer to post 23 would be nice !

 

I thought I had answered it in post 26. :) I think the only thing I can add is that, despite what people may think, my aim is to the best of my ability to explain the law the way I see it. That sometimes involves slaying sacred cows. I soldier on even where that makes me unpopular.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(e) it is argued that the Supreme Court got it wrong?

 

No, I think at this point, the conspiracy theorists got the upper hands, (not so much "wrong" as "wilfully gave the banks the victory they so badly needed), but it is generally accepted, at least where I have read so, that the SC may have made the right decision, at least on that very narrow issue of 6.2 of the UTCCR. Where they DID get it wrong is in deciding that the charges were part of the core terms, but if that is accepted, then their decision re 6.2 was correct in that the OFT can not assess fairness of core terms.

 

Remember at the last hurdle the banks amended their argument.

 

If it had remained that their charges were "reasonable administrative costs" would they then have been able to argue that they were a "a core part of their business" - I don't think so, as one appears to contradict the other.

If admin costs are so large I would suggest that they are doing something wrong.

 

It was only when they declared that these charges were a "cross subsidy" could they claim the "core part" argument.

 

so both of the above quotes may be wrong in IMHO as it was the banks moving the goal posts again and as I implied here this could be a real mistake for them.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2786301.html

HTH (Hope This Helps) RDM2006

 

THE FORCE (OF CAG) IS WITH YOU

;)

 

We've Helped You To Claim - Now Help Us Remain

A live Site - Make a Donation

 

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.

 

However, if you have found any advice you have been given helpful.

Why not show your gratitude And

Click the * on the post you found helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone any proof that the Banks made Witness Statements stating that their charges were for Admin Costs?

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Witness Statements ( and signed as Statements of Truth) that were submitted to the Courts BD, not letters. :D

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Witness Statements ( and signed as Statements of Truth) that were submitted to the Courts BD, not letters. :D

 

Would they really be in the public domain? I think only the courts and OFT would have that. The question is - can other courts access it?

HTH (Hope This Helps) RDM2006

 

THE FORCE (OF CAG) IS WITH YOU

;)

 

We've Helped You To Claim - Now Help Us Remain

A live Site - Make a Donation

 

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.

 

However, if you have found any advice you have been given helpful.

Why not show your gratitude And

Click the * on the post you found helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to find out?

 

Anyone? ;-)

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the difference. I was simply saying what I (and many others) do have - and HBOS etc. can't hide behind the fact they were "just" letters and not proper Witness Statements. They should still be truthful an dnot misleading.

 

I believe Glasgow Sheriff Court will get HBOS to put up or shut up regarding this in June. I can't wait!

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry BD if my tone came across as a bit off-ish, wasn't mean't to be....aoplogies :D

 

Indeed you're spot-on, and this is where our argument is now heading.

 

I was hoping that if someone could answer the above question then I think we all have a strong case insofar as the Banks have commited perjury!!

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't access my files at the moment because I have DD sleeping in what is normally my office (long story), but I know I have a witness statement from an ex-employee attesting that the costs were due to elaborate manual intervention and therefore a true reflection of the actual costs.

 

The bad news is that this was in my FNMF case, a long-absorbed finance company which was at last appearance owned by Abbey, so don't know how much of a use it would be to the general public.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Booky

 

Unfortunately it needs to be from the High Court / Appeal Court submittances of the OFT Test Case.

 

Still.....how old do you think it is?

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

do you think OFT might cough up a sample if we ask nicely lol :rolleyes::D

HTH (Hope This Helps) RDM2006

 

THE FORCE (OF CAG) IS WITH YOU

;)

 

We've Helped You To Claim - Now Help Us Remain

A live Site - Make a Donation

 

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.

 

However, if you have found any advice you have been given helpful.

Why not show your gratitude And

Click the * on the post you found helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

"Remember at the last hurdle the banks amended their argument.

 

If it had remained that their charges were "reasonable administrative costs" would they then have been able to argue that they were a "a core part of their business" - I don't think so, as one appears to contradict the other.

If adminlink3.gif costs are so large I would suggest that they are doing something wrong.

 

It was only when they declared that these charges were a "cross subsidy" could they claim the "core part" argument.

 

so both of the above quotes may be wrong in IMHO as it was the banks moving the goal posts again and as I implied here this could be a real mistake for them."

 

Amended thier argument? Is that REALLY what happened? Cos to me it looked very much like theier lawyers were arguing the exact opposite of what they had been saying for YEARS.

 

They CHANGED the terms and conditions, therefore WHY do those charges stand? And why hasn't there been a case about that?

 

The simplest way I can express how ridiculous the current situation is is found below.

 

The Office of FAIR Trading CANNOT rule on what is essentially an issue of fairness.

 

I know that sounds absurd, but that's where we're at. Something has to change, and if nothing does the Government has to step in.

 

Otherwise what they're saying is ok kids its ok to lie, and cheat (you can see this rewarded in sports to), so long as you get away with it the rewards a great.

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...