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

Without prejudice - save as to costs letter


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4204 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 Guys,

After a little help, my wife is currently going through a tribunal claim for constructive dismissal/sex discrimination by her previous employer, she has recently had a face to face CMD, the judge has said she does not have to pay a deposit & there is no need for a pre-hearing review as he sees the case as "black & white"

Yesterday she received a letter from her previous employers with the above title & this is what t they have said:

 

 

"Further to the case management discussion held at London South Employment tribunal on xxxxx, I now fully appreciate how you argue your case in relation to your sex discrimination & constructive dismissal claims.

Having considered your case I am afraid xxxxx cannot accept your case as you suggest it to be.

It is our contention that your case is misconceived. you reply on the fact that you were not able to return to work on the same contractual hours prior to you going on maternity leave. We are confident that we will be able to prove to the tribunal that you were offered the right to return to work on the same terms as requested.

Accordingly & having regard to the CMD on xxxxx, we write to advise you that under rule 40 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution & Rules Procedures) Regulations 2004, a Tribunal Judge can make an order for costs where the "..Bringing or conducting of proceedings has been misconceived", for these purposes, misconceived means the claim has no reasonable prospect of success.

In light of the above, we would invite you to withdraw your claim as we believe it to be misconceived. If you decide to continue your claim, then we put you on notice that we shall make a costs application against you at the final hearing, you should be aware that Tribunals can award up to £20,000 for wasted costs. We reserve the right to show this letter to the Tribunal on the question of costs."

 

 

Does this sound like a Tactic to get my wife to drop the claim?

 

Thanks,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou - I thought that was the case, especially as the Respondents solicitors asked the judge for a pre-hearing & for my wife to pay a deposit & the Judge said no to both this will go straight to a full hearing as it is "Black & white"( this gave my wife a good "Hint" that she has a good case against her former employers)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your wife's only complaint is that she was expected to work changed contractual hours on her return from mat. leave and her employer can prove that either this wasn't the case or they offered her the hours she requested; it's a fair warning.

 

Otherwise, probably a scare tactic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the ET has already refused to grant a PHR or deposit order, that means the claims do have relevant prospects of success, which means costs can't be awarded on that basis!

 

Their letter is therefore non sensical and a scare tactic. If they aren't prepared to openly threaten costs (ie not on a without prejudice basis) then don't worry at this stage.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the ET has already refused to grant a PHR or deposit order, that means the claims do have relevant prospects of success, which means costs can't be awarded on that basis!

 

Their letter is therefore non sensical and a scare tactic. If they aren't prepared to openly threaten costs (ie not on a without prejudice basis) then don't worry at this stage.

 

Thanks Becky - That's what I told the wife, the Judge said it doesn't need to go to a pre-hearing & you don't have to make a deposit, these 2 things normally mean there is little chance of success!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...