Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 162 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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4080 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

ongoing et case- if I am looking for an agreed reason for leaving (rather than dismissal for alleged GM) alongside a favourable reference (comp. policy is to give std one with role and dates) is this usually possible alongside any payment? Have had much trouble securing new role due to the way last role was left and even asked for previous role back on et1. Any ideas appreciated...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a fair chance at et? If not, unclear why you would get cash. If so, reasonable chance.

  • Confused 1

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, an agreed reference is a fairly standard term. Best to attach a copy of the standard reference to the settlement agreement and include a term which says the employer will provide that in response to any request for a reference (and any verbal reference or response to further questions shall be on no less favourable terms).


An agreed reason for leaving is more tricky. If you were dismissed for alleged gross-misconduct it would be untrue (and fraudulent) for the employer to say that you left for a completely different reason. A neutral reference just confirming your role and dates is more common.




Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the ideas, really appreciate it...


Can I also ask do you think it's best that for verbal refs. or further questions, is it best if I ask for them to be refused outright or as you've termed it?


Also, where that part about derogatory statments being prevented from just the claimaint, should this be made so that it's mutual and applies to the respondent too?


Lastly, is there any issue in having all future claims barred i.e. doesn't exclude PI for example?


Many thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

refusal of a reference may give you trouble in the future; standard dates is best


derogatory is best on both sides


all future claims barred is important if you think there is a future claim....

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically it is very difficult to control what the employer says over the phone, and it is not difficult to pick up a general impression verbally. On the other hand alarm bells could ring if the former employer refuses to say anything to the prospective employer. If you are worried about being slagged off it is perhaps probably better to say that any reference should be written only in standard form (preferably with the standard form attached to the settlement agreement), with any verbal discussions directed towards the written reference.


Yes, the part about derogatory statements being prevented should apply to both parties.


Fairly standard to agree that the settlement will prevent either party from making a claim against the other. Obviously this would do what it says on the tin, so if there is any other claim you have against the employer you should consider that.

Edited by steampowered




Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst a COT3 may contain a clause in the PI element, it's not compulsory.


It's impossible to contract out of future claims for personal injury or accrued pension rights regardless of whether it is written into the COT3, but you can ask for its inclusion if you feel you need that reassurance. Of course, if you are currently aware of circumstances which may give rise to a PI claim, you'd be waiving it by signing the COT3 as it stands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...