Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Around a month ago I had to send a sympathy card to a friend in GB. Logistically it made sense to buy a personalised one on eBay and get it sent straight to my mate, rather than faffing around getting it sent to me.  This mighty purchase set me back all of £3.05 (including postage costs). I was taken aback that, when it was sent, I got a tracking number.  For a flippin' three-quid card!  I had no idea that technology had moved on so much and that tracking was so easy.  The shop has feedback for 16,300 purchases so tracking must be easy & automatic. It's unlikely your case will get to court, but in cases that do this got me thinking that we need to aggressively challenge the PPCs where they have lied about the timescales of sending their rubbish and have no proof at all of posting - when it would be so easy to provide it.
    • Thanks for uploading the appeal.  It was a waste of time but well done in not outing the driver. Why have your friends paid £60 they don't owe to a private company that have no means of making them pay as they don't do court?  If they paid by card, as I presume they did, they should get on to their bank and do a chargeback immediately. We call the £70 the Unicorn Food Tax.  The law specifically states they are only allowed to charge the original £100 but the PPCs and their bezzies in their trade associations allow this made-up extra £70 so £100 becomes £170.  Unfortunately for them the law doesn't. Anyway, snotty letter time. Their is an example in post 32 here you can tweak as it's the same company but a different car park   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/463964-alliance-anpr-pcn-lease-car-appeals-refused-daymer-bay-cornwall/page/2/#comments  
    • Thank god you're not a part of the tribunal! Terribly biased and negative.  HR isn't all knowing. And this case proves it. Thanks again for your opinion.  I'm not going to court because of a few emails, I'm going to court because the head of HR has invented a PCP solely for me, which no other employee is made to sit. The language used in the emails is discriminatory and inflammatory.   
  • 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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...