Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • they have to account for and show how the final finance figure was arrived at for head office/whomever to approve the agreement. if they sold a new car £7000 below its listed price headoffice would go ballistic the scrappage discount would have been the same regardless to how you paid for the replacement car.  are these T&C part of the finance agreement or pre contract? we need to see them. just for clarity too, unless you specifically asked for Voluntary Termination by writing to Audi, or you have it in writing whereby Audi are stating it WAS a VT, it would have been Voluntary Surrender. sadly under VS you are liable for the full value of the agreement and the 50% VT figure is immaterial. dx    
    • unfortunately no dashcams, but I have now ordered one (a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted).  They have no dashcam either. Its my version of events vs. theirs.  The only thing I'm concerned about is if they do file a claim, and I havent told my insurance company, would that put me on the backfoot as far as them winning?
    • if your ins co catch wind of it your premiums will go thru the roof. as for the police, unless there are any injuries/accusations of dangerous driving etc, it a run of the mill event and unreportable. no dashcams? my neighbour's son had almost the same on the A9 last year, went on for months then i said search social media, has the car a dashcam. luckily the other driver was on several facebook ford ST car groups with pix and videos and he spotted it had a dashcam fitted. when he said show me your footage of me driving poioly and i'll pay to fix your car......everything then went very quiet.... dx    
    • No I get what you're saying and that is fair enough if that's the way it is, the issue is that the Judge has agreed that I part exchanged my car against a new car but then failed to acknowledge that it was a deposit of some form. To trade my car in and get a discount off a new car constitutes as a deposit by legislation. The Judge has conflicted himself and this is where he is misinterpreting the law.  I also shouldn't have had a scrappage discount and a dealership discount together, it says so in their terms and conditions, which in itself makes the agreement improperly executed at the very least.  This may all make more sense when I upload the trial bundle, it's over 160 pages though so taking a while to redact my information  it shouldn't have been marked on the agreement at all and the rrp of the car should have just been 7k lower then
  • 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
  • Create New...