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

Sheffield cc council tax fiasco.

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4148 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

On the 30 January 2013 I along with around 6000 others in sheffield received a council tax summons to be heard on 1 February (they day after)

There was a public out cry about the notice the summonses gave before the hearings as reported in the local paper http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/business/sheffield-council-tax-blunder-causes-misery-1-5377303. Today I received a liability order what should I do !! ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi...Yes I need to pay I don't have an issue with that, I had already made arrangement to pay. Is there a reason for the question ?

Either way the council have made an error and I object strongly to the added costs.

Thanks for your reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view you have not been given sufficient notification of the Hearing - 14 days is the requirement. The Council will probably argue that not their problem if the post was delayed but as there were so many you may have an argument to have it looked at. Have you been in touch with your local Councillor(s) - they are available 7 days per week up until 9pm as I understand it.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running




Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi...Yes I need to pay I don't have an issue with that, I had already made arrangement to pay. Is there a reason for the question ?


Hi jan2002, i think the reason for the question would have related to the fact that different advice would have been appropriate depending upon whether you were one of those who:


  1. should have been exempt
  2. had already paid and had no outstanding balance
  3. still had an outstanding council tax debt

I agree with Ploddertom that you should have had 14 days notice. Do you have the envelope still? If so, what date is the postmark on it?

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

are they still pursuing the LO?

if procedure not correctly followed, or liability/amount is wrong, then could try and get the LO set aside. could complain to the council. they have an option under s82 LGAct to 'quash' an LO, which they should do if incorrect procedure. otherwise there is 'common law' option re the mags

also, some brief cab info www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/d_council_tax_arrears.pdf

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things that may be a stumbling block to the insufficient notice argument is that, according to the newspaper report linked above, these summons' were dated January 11th.


Lets hope people kept the envelopes and that they have a dated franking mark on them!!



Link to post
Share on other sites

If the summons were posted by the correctly addressing and provided with the correct amount of postage the council are only responsible for handing them over for mail delivery .


Usually there will be some in a batch of summons that are delayed in the mail and the council can correctly state it was posted and therefore it is correct however if 6000 were delayed then it does suggest a major cockup and I'm very surprised the council try to initially push ahead.


The bigger problem seems to be that there is an admission that a lot of the summons were issued for accounts which were not in arrears and therefore it seems someone has really messed up as the systems have checks built in so that a summons cannot be issued on accounts with no balance without someone overriding it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...