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

A little bit help and info please


karenr31
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4289 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

Hello,

 

can anyone advise please, my daughter is seperated from her partner and has recently got herself a private rent, the seperation is amicable as they have a son, she is claiming benefits for the first time as had always worked before her son was born.

 

 

she is claiming housing benefit and has just had her first payment.

she recd a letter to attend an interview at the jobcentre and she thought it was standard practice.

 

 

she was asked if her circumstances had changed, if she was still permanently separated from her partner and if he spent time with the child.

she told the truth, he sees him regularly and has him weekends and more when he is on holiday.

 

 

she advised that they are permanently separated and was asked if she had any questions before being asked to sign a declarartion.

 

 

Question , was this an investigation? she is worried sick that she is in trouble.

she takes her son to his house and they are getting on well and maybe there is a chance they may even get back together. she has told me that she has stayed over a couple of times but has no intention of moving back at the moment as they get on better apart.he has not stayed at her house

 

 

Is she allowed to do this? she doesnt think she has done anything wrong as she isnt living with him and they are just trying to be good parents and over time maybe things will work out. any advise would be greatly appreciated

Edited by citizenB
Link to post
Share on other sites

if they are permanently separated, i would suggest that it probably is more sensible not to stop over, as this could give the impression that they are still in a relationship

 

if you browse this site, you will read about numerous people who have ended up in trouble over the occasional overnight stay

 

alternatively, she should be open and honest about it with the jobcentre/LA

If you have found my post useful, please click on the star at the bottom of my post and add some reputation points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you are allowed to have an amicable separation and get on well

 

However if you start dating each other again, you are starting to enter murky waters

 

There are a number of things that the DWP/LA considers when looking at 'living together' cases

 

The 6 signposts which are considered:-

1.Do they live in the same household?

2.Do they have a sexual relationship?

3.What are their financial arrangements?

4.Is their relationship stable?

5.Do they have children together?

6.Do they represent themselves as a couple in public?

 

You do not have to satisfy all 6 signposts, it is possible (though less common) to be found to be a couple on just 1

  • Haha 1

If you have found my post useful, please click on the star at the bottom of my post and add some reputation points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

in answer to the last post.

They dont live in the same household

they are not in a sexual relationship

he pays her child maintenance monthly but nothing else

they have one child

the do not go out as a couple but sometimes go to park swimming with their child.

they do however have a good relationship now they are separated and get on well

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...