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

Universal Credit/stay at home mums

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4631 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

hi everyone


does anyone know anything about how universal credit will work with regard to stay at home mums?


It seems that both partners in couples who currently claim tax credits will have conditionality applied and both will have to work in order to qualify for universal credit, even if one partner's working full time.


I have read that the threshold is to be set at around the mark that out of work benefit would stop, however i have also read that the threshold for couples is going to be set much higher, - 2 x full time hours at the minimum wage - about £430 per week.


does anyone know anymore? many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I work for tax credits & I be surprised if this level of detail is known yet. I'm not saying you or your source is wrong but we don't even know what is happening yet or how it will work. Harv has only just released the new thresholds for next years tax credits so as UC is a way off I thinks probably rumour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi everyone


thanks for your replies.


I read this on DWP website - it seems i'm not able to provide the link.


go to DWP - Universal Credit Briefing notes - 11. Extending conditionality under Universal Credit to working claimants: setting a new conditionality threshold.


This is fine of course if there are plenty of parent/child friendly jobs out there. I've been looking for such a job for over a year, and have only just managed to find a job working at a school, which for the most part fits in with our little ones. The system will be swamped with mothers of young children looking for such jobs, and considering the cuts in public spending these jobs are very few and far between. Add to this, the push for more workers to be flexible to suit the needs of business, it's going to become even harder to find a child friendly job. As an example, my husband works rotating shifts (days and nights - 4 on and 4 off), and he won't be unique, it's especially hard to balance working days/hours with the need for one of us to be home with the children.


this, if it happeens, is going to be extremely hard for those on a low income, we're heading for a generation of latch-key children.

Edited by Kim72
Link to post
Share on other sites

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.



Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)





Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...