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

EEA card not accepted here

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4412 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

This incident is not like the most common here so moderator please move it if it is inadvertently in the wrong place.


This didn't hurt my wallet but it went deep so I can't let it go and I wouldn't want anyone else to do it either. It is a longwinded story. Just take a look at the post length down there. Be warned.


I was trying to open a basic bank account at Halifax at Coventry.

No credit, no fancy finance, just a basic cash account.

It all went as it is common until the point when they asked for id. I handed my EEA (European Economic Area) id card as usual. They took it away because their computer asked for a date of issuance and there is none on the card. After about 7 minutes starting to worry what have happened they return and say that the card is not valid, the layout is not right and has info missing. I protested trying to swallow that the guy implicitly said that I had a forged id.


"But this is the card that is accepted to cross national borders"




"But this is a government issued document. There isn't anything more official than this"


"Sorry but I cannot open the account".


After leaving a good chunk of my personal details and financial details on their computer system (I still blush when they ask me how much is my salary - this used to be one of the most personal questions to ask somebody, right on the level of with whom have you had sex with - I don't know how other people stand for this) so after that I asked to speak with the supervisor who called their support services and then confirmed that the card was invalid. After one hour there I raised a formal complaint and left.

Great, we're back in the 50's, discrimination wise.


The reply letter came quickly but the result was the same. "We don't accept 'citizen cards'". That is the name that happens to be on the card which still remains an EEA card which they say they accept.


By God I wouldn't let this rest so I duly followed the next step: the Financial Ombudsman Service. Yes, that will teach them a lesson. Reply letter came after about a week: "Sorry, but we don't deal with commercial decisions".


So I was about to accept that I live in a country where the odds of getting consumer justice are the same as betting. Yes, I was optimistic then.


I called the FOS back and after some insistence, they asked me ('invited me') to send the paperwork to them back again.

After some back and forth the girl called me saying that they could now let me know that I can use the card to open an account [thanks FOS] and that Halifax were prepared to give £50 for the inconvenience,


"do you accept?"


"So can you tell me what will be done so that this doesn't happen again?"


"Well, bla bla bla [gobbledygook]. So do you accept?"


"So you will write to them?"


"Yes, I have spoken with them and bla bla bla [more drivel]. So do you accept?"


This fixation with acceptance made me feel hustled and with an sudden urge to do a little search on the FOS. What I have found in the net confirmed my suspicions. Anyway, the settlement form never arrived.


So let's cut the middle man and go to court. If I have the 'right' to spend loads on taxes let's see what can I get in return. Not that the courts are 'free'. Actually according to them they are funded by taxes by just around a fifth to support the ones who can't pay and the remaining claimants or defendants pay for their own cases. But this case is so legally basic that I though it to be worthwhile.


The tell-tale signs came when the bank (Lloyds Group, the actual owner of Halifax) failed to respond after the 28 days maximum allowed. Two days after that I asked for a judgment. The day after that the bank's response came in, was accepted and my judgement request refused. The deadlines rules apparently do not strictly apply in the judicial system. Not a good omen for a system whose mission is to enforce rules.


Then came the Allocation Questionnaire and I duly filed it. The outcome came a few weeks after. The claim has been dismissed because there appears to be no legal grounds to proceed. And what a coincidence that the code articles the judge used to dismiss the case were exactly the ones that the bank's solicitor used to ask the court to dismiss the claim.


I am no lawyer and I thought I felt right to believe the government's own advice that the small claims are more informal than the regular claims and you don't have to lay down which particular legal code you rely on. Moreover I wouldn't think it takes much legal training to find out the legal basis for basic discrimination, particularly if you are one of Her Majesty's judges.


So, yeah...

Edited by hchad
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...