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

Alert about packages phone S.CAM costing £315


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4643 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

People waiting for packages to be delivered in the run-up to Christmas have been warned about a phone S.CAM that could cost them hundreds of pounds.

 

Potential victims have notes posted through their doors explaining that a company tried to deliver a parcel but was unable to. The householder is asked to call a number – 09066611911 – but the call is redirected to Belize in Africa and the call costs £315.

 

http://tinyurl.com/6hoj4wp

Link to post
Share on other sites

No they didn't!

 

If you search on the telephone number even the Daily Fail has reported this the last 2 years running eventually pointing to the fact this number was shut down in 2005!

 

Careless talk cost lives :x Step away from the keyboard :whoo:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to scare people with made up rubbish then that's your lookout really. I would have hoped that one of the site team when faced with overwhelming evidence that they are posting ****e would go oops silly me.

 

This is the 1st comment off the Hull & East Riding news paper you probably got the story from

 

by Mark_Hull_65 Thursday, November 3 2011, 9:15PM

 

“I actually reported the story (only just noticed you can do that) this afternoon suggesting they read the comments and delete the story. Obviously they don't care so I can assume the HDM don't really care about being gullible muppets.”

 

From This is money i.e. the Daily Fail financial news website.

 

The 0906 661 1911 number for an undelivered parcel and a [problem] that just won't die

By Lee Boyce

 

Last updated at 11:13 AM on 24th October 2011

 

I had an e-mail recently warning me about a telephone [problem] and fake parcels being delivered.

 

A card is posted through your letterbox from a company saying it has been unable to deliver a package. It tells you to call 0906 661 1911 to find out how to retrieve the parcel, but if you do this the call is charged at £15 immediately.

 

The e-mail says the [problem] has been confirmed by Royal Mail, Trading Standards and ICSTIS. What is it?

 

Phone [problem]: This e-mail does the round every year and was shut down in 2005

 

Lee Boyce, of This is Money, replies: This [problem] seems to go around via e-mail year in, year out.

 

It picks up pace in the run-up to Christmas, as more people will be expecting packages through the post and the warning e-mail gets forwarded around accordingly.

 

We have written about this [problem] before at This is Money and it seems that this [problem] finished many years ago – but the e-mail continues to spook many.

 

I got in contact with PhonepayPlus, the UK premium rate telephone services regulator and when I mentioned that I had a query about a premium rate number, the member of staff over the phone didn’t even need to take it from me – she knew exactly what number I was going to ask about.

 

A PhonepayPlus statement reads: We are aware that a chain email about an alleged postal [problem] is being circulated on the internet. The email refers to the Royal Mail, Trading Standards and ICSTIS (PhonepayPlus' former name).

 

'PhonepayPlus appreciates that recipients of the e-mail may want to find out more information about the alleged [problem], but would like to reassure consumers that the e-mail is outdated and no longer poses a threat.

 

'The chain e-mail refers to a service operating on the premium rate number 0906 661 1911. This service was actually shut down by PhonepayPlus (then called ICSTIS) in December 2005. At that time, PhonepayPlus fined the Belize-based company behind the service £10,000.

 

'PhonepayPlus can confirm that the service is no longer running and has not been running since December 2005, so you do not need to contact PhonepayPlus, or the Royal Mail, about this service as it was stopped almost six years ago.'

 

Paul Whiteing, chief executive of PhonepayPlus said: ‘We shut this particular service down in 2005, but this chain e-mail has been widely forwarded every year since then – even though the number no longer works and there is no cause for concern.

 

‘We want to reassure consumers that they have no need to worry about this particular [problem].

 

However, if you do receive a delivery card through your letterbox which you do not believe is genuine and which asks you to dial a premium rate number (these numbers usually begin with 09), you can contact us on 0800 500 212 (Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm) for further guidance.’

 

PhonepayPlus advises that, if you receive a copy of the e-mail warning you about the alleged [problem], you do not send it on to others, but forward this information instead.

 

Please visit PhonepayPlus’ FAQs for useful information about how to recognise premium rate services and understand what they cost, and some simple tips to help you use services with confidence.

l
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to scare people with made up rubbish then that's your lookout really. I would have hoped that one of the site team when faced with overwhelming evidence that they are posting ****e would go oops silly me.

 

This is the 1st comment off the Hull & East Riding news paper you probably got the story from

 

 

 

From This is money i.e. the Daily Fail financial news website.

 

l

 

As I'm not privy to the full report from either the Royal Mail nor Trading Standards I had to rely on the article as produced in the HDM which coincidently is part of the same publishing group as the Daily Mail.

 

As for going "oops silly me", why should I? It certainly isn't anything to feel silly about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4643 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...