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
      • 160 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

Urgent **Citi's solicitors active** Urgent


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6374 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

Have just had a long missive fromone 'Brian Smith' solicitor and I shall be posting my reply for blessings (or otherwise) before despatch. However (there's always one of those!) he does quote a case "Kissick v Citifinancial Europe plc" where he maintains that the 'fairness' of the £12 was put to the test - not found wanting - case dismissed. I am presuming (hate the word) that this might have been at Salford County Court since he (Smith) already promises to 'exercise the defendant's right to have the claim transferred to its home court' ; he then names Salford County Court. Any advice on 'Kissick etc' please or can someone give me a steer on how to find out? Did they REALLY manage to get one 'over the wire' whilst we weren't lookin'??

I SHALL return

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got the same letter (similar).

 

Think that case was one where he had not prepared and lost for that reason only. Someone elsew should know for sure.

-----------------------------------------------

Mortgage Express charges- settled in full after issuing claim

 

------------------------------------------------

To view the FAQ'S click here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/

To view the PRELIM letter click here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/516-1-data-protection-act.html

To view the Letter Before Action click here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/92-3-letter-before-action.html

To find Registered Address:

http://www.esd.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/esd/search.asp

 

 

If my advise helps click here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/reputation.php?p=366404

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks folks.

In view of Martin's and LTWFB's comments on "Citi repayment..."thread ~157 et al, it might be foolish for me to publish a 'blow by blow' response for "all" to see; in the first instance I shall PM Martin3030 and LTWFB if that is acceptable?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - don't worry. Brian is sending that letter to everyone trying to put them off.

 

He can't have the case transferred to Salford as Citi is a company and the claimant, as an individual will have the case heard at their own home court.

 

PM Martin3030 if you need any advice on the wording as Citi monitor these threads (and print them out and then try to - unsuccessfully - use parts of them in hearings, as I know to my experience)

 

lickthewallfatboy will also be able to help with what is currently happening.

Abbey - Claim 1

full hearing 22 Feb 07 - Settled in full £710 :D

Abbey (Claim 2)

full hearing 22 Feb 07- Settled in full £4000 :D

Abbey (Claim 3)

Court date 27 June -

Capital One (claim 1)

£467 Settled in full 20 Sep :D

Capital One (claim 2)

£72 refunded 19 Aug :-D

Associates (Citicards)

claim 8 Aug/judgment by default 30 Aug/set aside hearing 9 Oct/Stay denied, ordered by Judge to reveal breakdown of charges andfull hearing 24 May/FULL DISCLOSURE ORDERED BY 8 MARCH/JUDGE TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE AS NON-COMPLIANCE/DEFENCE STRUCK OUT PAYMENT IN FULL REQUIRED IN 14 DAYS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. Citi may well have put that to the test - in a CLOSED hearing without the claimant being privy to the information - either BEFORE, or indeed at the court.

 

There are things afoot ;-)

 

Also, they have been ordered to disclose in another court since then, so time will tell ;-)

 

Personally, I would continue as before. If they want to play this game, then fair play. We're more determined than their solicitors are paid, if you catch my drift. Enjoy it!

 

Plus, other things are afoot regarding their access to this forum ;-)

 

(Maybe they should have read the rules :-) )

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

------------

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received a letter from Brian Smith last week. His letter stated that the OFT ruling does not apply to mortgages and they think their charges are fair and they will not be giving me anything back.

 

This is on an account they say they cannot trace.

 

Whether or not they find the account dosen't really bother me as there is a default attached to the account which I want rid of, so either way I will be a winner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These guys just get funnier, it was the OFT statement which drew everyones attention to the charges issue. Even before that you could have deemed any charge which resulted in a profit as unlawful.

 

Kennyh, you should also be made aware that Citi will most likely try and persuade you that you are due more or less than the total amounts on your spreadsheet. Its a tactic they have tried with 6+ of us on here.

Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...