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

please please help, car insurance gave me too much now want it back!

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5096 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

Ok so i brought a car in april for 3200, i got it cheap as the head gasket was gonna go and i know someone who could repair it. in may i was in a crash (not my fault) and wrote the car off. I told the garage that i paid £3200 for it. 3 days later direct line called telling me the were going to send me a cheque for £5200. i asked them to double check the amount and they did. i have then had two letters confirming the settlement offer of £5200 and a cheque for 5200. i have cashed the cheque and brought a new car for that value. now 6 weeks on i get a phone call saying that a mistake was made and they want 2k back. i told them its gone, they said i should of known the market value of the car. i told them im not a car man so i was just pleased with the settlement and i have got the letter still and there is no money left so they cant have it. they then said as its there fault they will let me off with 1k?? surely this means they havent a leg to stand on so there trying to get anything they can? i said i need to speak to a solicitor as i have no money and need to know my rights. they said ok and i'll speak with them another time.


What you guys reckon? do i need to find the cash or is it there problem and tough luck?

Link to post
Share on other sites



I think you should be entitled to it under the doctrine of promisory estoppel.


"A promisor—one who makes a promise—makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee—one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detriment—that is, an economic loss—ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise." (Promissory Estoppel legal definition of Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.)


Since you acted on the promise and suffered economic loss - paying for the car itself is at no economic loss because the money came from the settlement however things like road tax, insurance, ect are economic loss which have come from your pocket.


The only thing that may hinder your action is that you knew the car was worth less so it may be considered inequitable if it goes to court, but I doubt the company will take it to court.



- Manny90

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have no legal basis for asking you for any money. You made a claim and they settled, confirming the amount. You had no reason to disbelieve the settlement value. Direct line would have looked at the book value for the car, before offering settlement. Insurance is to cover market value and not what you paid.


So I would just write back, saying that you accepted their settlement of the claim at £5200 representing market value and as far as you are concerned, that is the end of the matter.


Tell them that if they have any legal basis to continue to make requests for money, they must state their case using legal terms. Point out that Direct Line could be liable for any sums that you incurred if you had to seek legal advice.

We could do with some help from you.



 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group


If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have accepted their offer of settlement and as such a binding contract of compromise has been made.


The only get out clause would be that the contract was based upon an error, however, that is a slim hope and because you clarified their offer, I would suggest they don't have a leg to stand on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are flapping like mad now I`ll bet. The person that sent the cheque to you was probably the person on the phone, realising their mistake is trying to claw it back. Tell them to do one. Politely of course!.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...