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

Gap Year Insurance Warning

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5104 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

Press release


Tuesday 3rd August, 2010


With over 250,000 young people this year embarking on gap year travel, students and their parents are warned to check for small print in travel insurance policies following an important ruling by the Financial Ombudsman. The travel insurance provider for Boots, AIG/Chartis, has been found guilty of not drawing "an onerous or significant policy term to the attention of the insured at the time of purchase" and ordered to refund £26,000 to their customer.


On a gap year trip James Pinnington, then aged 19, fell off whilst riding a scooter/moped in Vietnam in 2008 injuring himself badly and needed to be brought back to the UK by air ambulance for intensive care. Boots' gap year policy wording stated: "...whether you're planning to hang out in Chile, back pack in the outback...you'll be able to relax knowing that you've got comprehensive cover... should the unthinkable happen". However Boots' insurers used a clause in the 50 pages of small print of the policy to refuse the claim which stated that James needed to have a "UK Class A motorcycle licence" to be covered for riding any kind of moped/scooter.


With his son in agony, James's father had to immediately fly out to Vietnam and arrange himself for his son to be repatriated. Boots suggested that he personally pay their specialist repatriation company, who quoted £80,000, but he instead was able to find an Asian air ambulance company to help at a total cost of £25,000.


Following representations from the family, the Financial Services Ombudsman, took 18 months to reach a decision in James's favour and has ordered the insurers to pay the claim, amounting to £26,000. The Financial Services Authority is also currently investigating whether these insurance contracts breach the new Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.


Commenting James's father Chris Pinnington says, "I am delighted that the Financial Ombudsman has found in our favour and hope that our worrying experience will serve as a timely warning to other parents and young people planning their gap year travel. I also hope it will send a serious a message to the insurance sector as a whole regarding small print exclusion clauses.


"I was lucky that I had contacts in Vietnam to help me arrange repatriation and that I could find the funds to pay within a week, but dread to think what would have happened had I been unable rapidly to raise the £25,000 for the air ambulance with James left in a village hospital in the middle of Vietnam.


"Scooters/mopeds are the way people get around in countries like Vietnam and most parents believe that their gap year insurance policy will cover their kids if they are injured. I am urging the insurance industry as a whole to make it absolutely clear to all gap year policy holders whether they would be covered in such situations."


James was operated on in England and, after a week in intensive care, managed to walk within three months and is now a student at Bristol University, back to normal health.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...