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
      • 162 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

magistrates refund payment and send send bailffs!!

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5101 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hi all,


I recently received a fixed penalty notice of £90 for driving without MOT (expired fortnight earlier, my fault I know) Only last week was I able to pay it to the HMCS but this morning (28/07/10) received a letter from bailiffs dated 16/07/10 demanding payment of £165 within seven days or bailiffs coming to collect :eek:!!

After a few phone calls it appears the HMCS shouldn't have accepted payment so have decided to refund it although they never notified me and I am still yet to receive the said refund.

Initially the HMCS blamed the automated payment system, until I reminded the payment was made during human conversation with a HMCS telepohonist. They say they shouldn't have done so but that is my problem and maybe I should seek legal advice, so I am now waiting for a knock on the door :(

Can anyone offer me any advice please

Link to post
Share on other sites

The plot thickens!!


After refusing to believe me when I told them the payment was accepted manually and not via automated payment system, they have just called me to say they now agree a member of HMCS telephone staff accepted the payment.....but she wasn't authorised to do so. Therefore they don't accept my payment (even though it has left my bank account and presumably landed in theirs!!) as it is now with bailiffs re;the letter I received this morning with last weeks adress on it. They say they are sending a cheque in the post as a full refund.


Do I have any grounds to refuse the refund and argue they have already accepted payment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems pretty clear to me that there is no power to refuse a payment. The problem is there is no effective remedy to turn to in these cases.


HMCS have got into bed with the likes of Marstons and are acting purely to earn fees for the latter. These fees do not even have any legal basis, until goods are actually levied and sold, and they cannot levy for fees alone, but again it's the lack of a remedy if they do anyway.


I'm planning to write to the author of The Magistrate's Blog who seems a fair minded sort of person to see if he can investigate or offer any advice over the wider issue.

Edited by Zamzara

Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...