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

Ro v CAPITAL ONE


ro284
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4419 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

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 4 weeks later...

Thanks for reply ims, Sorry for delay in reply, had another set back, Capital one have said i have to deal with Moorgate, now moogate say they have instructed Arden! Arden keep phoning but i cannot answer! i was able to cope just paying the £1 calculated by CCCS, Arden want £6000!And this is only the first of a few! However i seem to think i read somewhere that the fact that i have no agreement with Arden or Moorgate. thay cannot do anything! Can anyone tell me if this is correct please, As things are, i am still paying Cap One! £1 as originally advised by CCCS. Any advice please? very gratefull. Ro

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks ims, i had a surprise letter today from them, stating that they will need more time to look into the situation,and that they will do every thing they can to reply in 7 weeks. so will see what they decide. It would give me a boost to get somewhere with this one, to spur me on to do others. Thanks again Ro

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes ims, 8 weeks i believe.

but they said in early April=

 

that under the limitation act 1980 i am out of time to make any claim in relation to these charges,

so i assumed there was nothing i could do,

 

i lost a bit of heart then,

 

however i do feel i know the process thanks to your help,

 

Also if they do pay out,

they then effectively set themselves a pesident as i see it,

to enable me to go after other accounts,

Ro

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ro

 

Just to clarify...

 

 

For the PPI claim they have 8 weeks from receipt of the complaint to give you a final decision.

 

For the charges claim it is you who sets the timescale, not them.

 

Don't forget these are two distinct claims and the charges one you will likely have to go to court for.

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...