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

City Link Hide behind T+C then state your not THE CUSTOMER


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4538 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

Hi

 

as post states ordered an item on internet was constantly updated by seller then recieved an automated email fro City Link Stating

 

"City Link Parcel Delivery Notification - Your order from XXXXXXXXXXX wil be delivered on Wednesday 4th January 2012, between the hours of 07.30 and 17.30". (have email in pdf format)

 

Due to this took day off work to wait for parcel as stated by City Link and low and behold it did not arrive no reason from city link so contacted them on 4th Jan at 18.30 to be kept on hold for 30mins waiting to speak to a customer advisor.

 

eventually got one who informed me parcels due for deliver on Thurs 5th Jan and when pointed out loss of earnings due to what there email stated didnt really care told to put complaint in via there website. This is where my defences went up and i pointed out that when City Link sent me that email stating a confirmed delivery dated they had actually entered into a contract with myself and that i will not put my complaint in via there website as i am telling you that i have been kept on hold for over 30mins to escalate it to a formal complaint or is City Links Technology that bad you cant do it. Amazingly sudden attitude change and yes he can do it, so why the hell tell me i HAVE TO DO IT VIA WEBSITE!!!!

 

So today 5th Jan in morning got a call from there supposed complaints dept (I say supposed complaints dept as all she kept doing is defending City Link) now this part will make you laugh.

 

So i inform her that due to City Links incompetence i have lost a days earnings as the email stated delivery confirmation for 4th Jan, well she responds that not correct the 'SYSTEM' says PLANNED delivery date 4th Jan so i point out that is not in the email that your company sent to my email address and during this conversation checked there website and when you input there tracking number Low and Behold on there website it says PLANNED delivery date of 4th jan.

 

She firmly sticks to this defending city link until i point out yes it states planned delivery date on your website but that is not what is stated in the actual email that your company sent now mention of PLANNED but states WILL BE DELIVERED.

 

So i point out that since they sent me that email they then entered into a contract with me and are in breach of that and that due to this i lost a days earning and over 30mins on hold to there supposed customer service which aint a free call. Didnt care still defended city link and pointed out they had entered no contract with me (the email they sent) and i was not a customer of there company (funny that isnt it) and to read there terms and conditions (why should i do that if i am not a customer) gets better and to claim compensation i must go through seller as they are the customer. Well if i am not a customer of city link they must had breached the DPA to email me with delivery details.

 

Near the end of the conversation that i had to constantly tell this individual to stop talking over me she actually admits it was 'HUMAN ERROR' but still didnt care less.

 

City Link should be ashamed of it Customer Service but that depends if they call you a customer and no point in complaining as we always defend City Link even when it obvious we were in the wrong.

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that they are right, legally you are not the customer, and there is no contract with you.

 

A contract requires offer, acceptance, and consideration, in this case there has been no acceptance communicated to the offerer, and no consideration.

 

Citylink would not pay you compensation if the stampede of elephants ran over your parcel - they would pay the seller. They will not take instructions from you about leaving the item with neighbours, etc, unless the seller specified that they should.

 

Citylink have also not breached the DPA, the seller will have provided your email address for them to use - if the seller did not get your permission first then the seller is in breach of the DPA.

 

 

All you can do is give the seller grief... lots of grief.... and suggest that he finds another courier, one with a calendar that works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MSSF is spot on. The contract is between the seller and the courier, you are merely the recipient and the fact they kept you informed doesn't form a contract, it is purely for information, and you have agreed for the seller to supply yuor details for delivery hence no breach of the DPA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Thanks all for your advice

 

But still think i will write a official complaint to city link the main reason i think there is a flaw in there systems.

 

1. The email that was sent to me on 3rd Jan stated "City Link Parcel Delivery Notification - Your order from XXXXXXXXXXX wil be delivered on Wednesday 4th January 2012, between the hours of 07.30 and 17.30".

 

2. There systems and own website contradict this email by stating "Planned Delivery Date".

 

Therefore the information that was emailed to myself on 3rd Jan wasnt just incorrect if going off there systems but completey wrong.

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...