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

PPI - do I have a case due to not living at insured address?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3817 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 all!

 

I havent been on here for ages, so I do hope if some of the old crew are still on that all of your issues are sorted or at least going your way :-)

 

Now I am not sure if this is a shot in the dark or I have a claim.

 

In 2008 I called a company I wont name for some advice on getting a policy to pay out if I was too ill to work or got made redundant.

 

The company advised on two seperate policies and these were set up.

 

I was out of work a while back so had reduced them both down, then when back in work for some reason I increased one but not the other.

 

Things are looking iffy at work so thought I best check how I stand and increase the redundancy one.

 

The lady advised me on my options.

 

For some reason, when this was all set up, the financial adviser put the address of the house my mortgage is on,

which was being done up and not habitable,

in fact i have never lived in it,

even though he knew I was living back at home and this should have been my correspondance address.

 

I happened to say to the woman,

I should really change the correspondance address, to which she then said, yes because if you no longer live there you are not covered!

 

I then explained to which she, her colleauge I spoke to next, and supervisor all confirmed.

.. in this case you have never been covered! and even said...this looks like a mis-sold policy!

 

So guys, does this sound correct, and if so what do I do next?

 

As always, thanks for reading and any help in advice

 

Ed

 

There will of course be interest to add if it has been missold.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...