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
      • 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

Three Mobile


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4988 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

Just a bit of advice.

 

I joined three over 18 months ago. Originally had an INQ phone. One of the main features is that it could be used as a USB modem and you could use it with your PC for the internet. It was just plug in and go.

 

I upgraded a few weeks ago. I asked for the same facility and same feature. The lady that sold it gave me a new samsung phone which she said offered the same. I emphasied that it was important that it had this feature and advised her I would be using it insetad of a dongle.

 

A couple of weeks after receiving the phone, I tried to use it on the PC. It did not work. I tried again a few days later. Still did not work.

 

I called 3. It took them ages to see if the phone was compatible. They basically said that I would have to pay extra to use this facility. I complaigned that I was not advised this as I did not have to on original INQ phone. I stated that I felt I had been mis sold this as they had not stated all the facts at the time of the upgrade.

 

Almost an hour later they played back the recording of the original call. They said I was correct that I had asked for this facility.

 

They then tried to defend their staff saying that she was techinally correct and had given me the right phone. Due to this they would noy let me return the phone. I pointed out the regulations to them advising them that they should have said that this phone would cost you extra if you wished to use it on your pc. After over an hour they came back and offered me a mobile broadband extra on my account. They said that they would not charge me £15 extra for this feature, only half price at 7.50.

 

I reluctantly took this, and they said that they would confirm this in writing. They did not and today I called again and took this off the account as I do not see why I have to pay extra for what was originally free and I feel that they did not provide me with the correct info from the start. I would have gone elsewhere if I was to be charged extra.

 

Where do I stand with this. Am I now locked in for the next 18 months??? Apart from the problem with the mis selling, the phone is awful to use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correspond in writing about the misselling. Check out their "Code of Practice" here that will outline their complaints procedure.

 

The best I feel you can expect is for them to honor the agreement that you should be able to tether your mobile to your laptop for using the internet.

 

You may also find that if you tether your mobile to your laptop via bluetooth (if your laptop doesn't have bluetooth you can pick a bluetooth dongle up very cheaply) you can use the phone as a modem that way, as they don't block bluetooth devices from using the internet, only computers / laptops that are hardwired)

If in doubt, contact a qualified insured legal professional (or my wife... she knows EVERYTHING)

 

Or send a cheque or postal order payable to Reclaim the Right Ltd.

to

923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE

 

 

Click here if you fancy an email address that shows you mean business! (only £6 and that will really help CAG)

 

If you can't donate, please use the Internet Search boxes on the CAG pages - these will generate a small but regular income for the site

 

Please also consider using the

C.A.G. Toolbar

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're both right. The facility you want IS available on the replacement handset, as it was in your last, BUT - they charge for this in a different way, Apple users know this as 'tethering' where the phone acts as a modem. The networks now allow this, but want paying for it additionally, as they have blocked handsets accessing data in this way to prevent over use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...