Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • For the moment do nothing, never appeal, wait for a letter before action, ignore all the tripe they send you other than that.
    • as another of farages faragit reformatory boy shows his true colours Ian Gribbin, the party's candidate in Bexhill and Battle claimed * ' the country would be "far better" if it had "taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality" instead of fighting the Nazis in World War Two. err tell that to the russians - who did .. * said people should  “exorcise the cult of Churchill and recognize that in both policy and military strategy, he was abysmal”. * Praised Russian president Vladimir Putin as he: "understands the bonds that create more stable societies; the hypocrisy of the West is preposterous as we stare in the face daily the enormous economic equalities created by our deluded neo liberal ideas" and "if only the West had politicians of his class".   * 'women were the "sponging gender" and should be "deprived of health care". * "Men pay 80% of tax – women spend 80% of tax revenue. On aggregate as a group you only take from society. Less complaining please from the 'sponging gender'." - Wonder what his momma thinks of that?   On being caught out, cribbin initially refused to comment before belatedly and weakly 'apologising' A Reform spokesman said the comments were “written with an eye to inconvenient perspectives and truths”. Chairman Tice said “We’re really pleased with all candidates." Leader Farage seemed to think the greens vetting OUT and suspending 20 unsuitable candidates was a 'bigger problem' than reform not only leaving **** the unsuitable in, but also being apologists for them     Reform candidate says UK should have ‘taken Hitler’s neutrality offer’ WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK He also praised Russian president Vladimir Putin and described Winston Churchill as ‘abysmal’   Reform UK candidate apologises over Hitler neutrality comments WWW.BBC.CO.UK Ian Gribbin says his grandparents were "Russian Jews fleeing persecution" and his comments were taken out of context.  
    • do you ultimately want to keep the car?
    • Thank you!    It was bought on my debit card    
    • Hi. Welcome to CAG. How was the car purchased?  
  • 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

Got My Money Back!


southernscouser
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6496 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

Wohoo! :D

 

10 days after them offering half, I have now got a cheque for the full whack! :razz:

 

Just two last questions though!

 

On the 'notice of discontinuance' form I tick the box saying 'discontinues all of this claim', easily done.

 

But the bit after where I put the judges name (got his name due to a CRAP18 request or whatever) but then says 'by order dated'.............................

 

What date goes in there? :confused:

 

And also do I still have to cancel the claim through moneyclaim?

 

 

Would just like to say thank you to everyone who has helped me through this! To all you new claimers just starting, you will get your money back. Don't let there fancy jargon scare you off. Perservere and you will get back whats rightfully your's! :)

 

As for the CAG guys if someone would like to point me in the direction of the questionairre thingy there is a nice litte thank you donation with your name on it! ;)

 

Thank you very much guys

 

SS :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just two last questions though!

 

On the 'notice of discontinuance' form I tick the box saying 'discontinues all of this claim', easily done.

 

But the bit after where I put the judges name (got his name due to a CRAP18 request or whatever) but then says 'by order dated'.............................

 

What date goes in there? :confused:

 

Anyone? :confused::D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump! Don't know the answer to this but thought I'd bump to see if someone can help with your answer

1 - 18 August 2006 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

2 - 29 Ausust 2006 - Statements dated October 2002 to July 2006 received. One single statement separately packaged dated August 2006 also received. No correspondence enclosed.

3 - 6 October 2006 - Statements prior to October 2002 to July 2000 received - thiscovers statute only

Link to post
Share on other sites

No hes looking for the date that goes in the bit after you put the judges name I think?

1 - 18 August 2006 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

2 - 29 Ausust 2006 - Statements dated October 2002 to July 2006 received. One single statement separately packaged dated August 2006 also received. No correspondence enclosed.

3 - 6 October 2006 - Statements prior to October 2002 to July 2000 received - thiscovers statute only

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's OK. Sorted now thanks! :D

 

Cool! Grats on getting it back btw =D

1 - 18 August 2006 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

2 - 29 Ausust 2006 - Statements dated October 2002 to July 2006 received. One single statement separately packaged dated August 2006 also received. No correspondence enclosed.

3 - 6 October 2006 - Statements prior to October 2002 to July 2000 received - thiscovers statute only

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...