Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • and more positive change From next year, mobile phone, paid television and broadband companies must inform customers of any price rises at the point of sale. The changes, ordered by Ofcom, will come into force on 17 January and mean that any mid-contract price rises must be given “in pounds and pence” and in a “clear and comprehensible” way.   Taken a change of government to do it after years of bluster about it eh?   Mobile phone companies banned from hiking prices mid-contract based on inflation WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK The new year plan ensures providers are transparent on prices at the point of sale  
    • Could he/ his partner set up a new internet bank account?  In his name ? It depends which country, I imagine. Most UK banks want proof of address and ID, probably more. If your friend/partner can use the house address and provide bills that could help. You would need to look at various online banks and see what their requirements are. Or there are expat accounts but I haven't looked closely at how they work. Could I then get his pension diverted to that new account?  That would at least cover some costs  ( ie epc/ storage) I'd have thought the DWP would pay to a new account, as long as the person they're authorised to deal with asks them and provides details. The international pensions people in Newcastle are pretty helpful.
    • HB - he has certainly given me a challenge ! I set a plan in motion. A refinance plan that would have enabled me to take time to sell one asset and sort out another for him.   The bank account blockage has hindered the plan.  His partner seems to think I can do everything w/o paying anyone for anything.  I don't mind helping - but it's not normal to clear out 2 properties, organize storage or sale of possessions, get properties ready for sale/ rent - w/o being paid.  He has the money to pay for things and services - and for my help - but the blockage prevents that. If the refinance plan could still be actioned then at least I would have some time to sell one asset.  Could he/ his partner set up a new internet bank account?  In his name ? Could I then get his pension diverted to that new account?  That would at least cover some costs  ( ie epc/ storage)
    • It's a shame that your friend didn't take care of this while he had capacity and before he left the country, isn't it? He seems to have made your mission impossible. HB
    • HB - this form and process is as I remember it from handling relatives cases.  It's a timing thing.  Which has passed in terms of my friend
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Brakes fitted wrong way round!!


Smithy 1987
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4622 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

I purchased a Renault Megane convertible from a certain large car retailer (I wont disclose the name for legal reasons) on 10th September 2010.

 

In March 2011 a rattling noise was noted from the vehicle rear following an MOT at Renault but it still passed, however Renault suggested further investigation was required in to the brakes. I took the car back to Renault to get repaired in May 2011, as the noise had become audibly horrendous! Renault found the off side rear brake pad had been fitted back to front and the car was unsafe to drive. The brake disc showed significant scoring where the brake pad had been fitted back to front on it.

 

The car retailer who sold me the car deny that the vehicle was sold in that condition, despite reports from Renault and refusing to pay for work that had to be repaired. The company's argument is that the car was checked before being sold, and it would be impossible to not have noticed such a fault and asked how did it still manage to pass MOT?

 

The matter is still due in court, but any further advice on the issue??? :???:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I purchased a Renault Megane convertible from a certain large car retailer (I wont disclose the name for legal reasons) on 10th September 2010.

 

In March 2011 a rattling noise was noted from the vehicle rear following an MOT at Renault but it still passed, however Renault suggested further investigation was required in to the brakes. I took the car back to Renault to get repaired in May 2011, as the noise had become audibly horrendous! Renault found the off side rear brake pad had been fitted back to front and the car was unsafe to drive. The brake disc showed significant scoring where the brake pad had been fitted back to front on it.

 

The car retailer who sold me the car deny that the vehicle was sold in that condition, despite reports from Renault and refusing to pay for work that had to be repaired. The company's argument is that the car was checked before being sold, and it would be impossible to not have noticed such a fault and asked how did it still manage to pass MOT?

 

The matter is still due in court, but any further advice on the issue??? :???:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The condition of the brakes is only checked on an MoT test by measuring the effectiveness of the braking. Even metal-to-metal could possibly pass an MoT as long as the brakes reached the required efficiency and braking effort remained balanced across all wheels. Callipers and hoses are checked for leaks/perishing, but there is no check of pad condition if they cannot be seen without dismantling

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your advice. Renault did state this, BUT the retailer still argues the MOT checks the thickness of the brakes and this could not have been measured by Renault if the brake pad was back to front, ALSO they said the car has alloy wheels so Renault could have peered through the alloy to cimply check the brake condition. This retailer is REALLY not giving in!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought the vehicle in Sept 2010 with a mileage of 31, 852 miles, at the MOT in March 2011 when rattling began the mileage was 34,749, but I did not get the vehicle fitted until two months later May 2011 (because of finances) with a mileage of 35, 305 by then the noise was horrendous and the disc significantly scored!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought the vehicle in Sept 2010 with a mileage of 31, 852 miles, at the MOT in March 2011 when rattling began the mileage was 34,749, but I did not get the vehicle fitted until two months later May 2011 (because of finances) with a mileage of 35, 305 by then the noise was horrendous and the disc significantly scored!

 

That does kind of throw your claim straight out the window. You admit that despite knowing a fault existed that was damaging your discs you continued driving it. They are also going to point out that it took 3000 miles and 6 months to discover the fault which came to light while being worked on by another garage. They will simply say anyone could of tampered with the car during that time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something not right about this post. For a start there is the multiple postings. And then as Graham points out. 3000 miles and six months for the noise it must have been making. Sorry.....just don't buy any of it.

 

It is possible to fit incorrectly but the warning signs would have been there from as soon as it was driven away.

 

It's just not a credible story.

 

However I have seen worse. So the question has to be why did you leave it that long given the noise that must have been apparent and you admit, to query it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"BUT the retailer still argues the MOT checks the thickness of the brakes"

That is incorrect. All they check is the braking efficiency and balance on a rolling road. They may or may not look at the brake pad thickness; most do not as it is not part of a standard MoT Test and on most cars you cannot see the pad thickness anyway without dismantling which is not done in an MoT test.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...