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

Very+Isme debts

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3996 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

I'm hoping someone can help me with issues i am having with my catalogue account very and isme part of shop direct group.


Basically i have accounts with both very and isme, last year in march i ordered a ipad 2 from isme on a buy now pay later basis, when i received the ipad there were scuff marks on the screen and on the corners of the ipad, it looked it had been used and it certainly wasn't a brand new ipad. Within 7 days of receiving the ipad i contacted very by email to complain about this, i received a response from very stating because i had turned the ipad on i had to contact an 0844 number to discuss this further. At the time i wasn't working so it was difficult for me to contact the 0844 number, however on several occasions i contacted the number but i was always placed in a queue and on hold for over 30 minutes, it got to the point i couldn't afford to call the number.


I then decided to write a complaint letter, i wrote several letters to the customer excellence department and waited months for them to reply and go no response. At this point i was getting very frustrated so i decided to withold payments on both my very and isme accounts (a stupid thing to do i know), they were not responding and i wasnt going to pay them until they responded. At this point i was getting charged interest for the ipad eventhough it was supposed to have been put on a buy now pay later basis, but apparently it wasn't put on that basis.


i then wrote a letter and sent via recorded delivery and finally got a response from them, this was in October last year that i got a response from them. Basically they stated they were not aware of any issues from apple and that they have noted the issue, as a good will gesture they offered me a £40 refund.


I then wrote another letter to them stating i wanted all the charges that i was charged on both my very and isme account refunded because of how long this complaint took to resolve and that i wasn't happy with the refund offered as i could get a second hand ipad for a lot less, till this day i have got no response to that letter.


In april this year i decided to take my case to the financial ombudsman service, i went through the process i recieved a reply from FOS stating they will be asking for all the communication and paper work from very, i spoke to a nice chap who advised me that i clear the balances first then pursue a complaint with them, from October last year up until May this year i witheld payments to both my very and isme accounts, i received a default notice demanding i clear the arrears on my isme account, i paid the whole balance off, i then went on to making a payment on my very account (Note i did not recieve any default notice for this account), i logged into my very account only to find i could not access my online account, i called customer services who informed i had to contact another department, i called this other department only to find they were closed for the day, this was on a friday, i called agian the following Monday but again they were closed due to the bank holiday, and finally i called on the Tuesday and finally got through to someone, when i was discussing things they informed me that i shouldn't be discussing things with them and that my account was sold on to a debt collection agency and that it was no longer with shop direct group, the debt was bought out on a bank holiday.


At this point i received response from the FOS stating they have informed very and i would receive a response from them. A few weeks later i received a response from the customer excellence department asking me to discuss my complaint with them, i gave my reasons as to what i was complaining about and that i wanted the account returned to very and the default removed from my credit file, my reasons were that i received a damaged ipad and it took over 6 months to resolve, i withheld payments because of this and i have been charged so much interest on both my accounts and that i wanted these refunded back to me, i received no default notice for my very account and if i did i would have cleared the arrears, when i recieved a default notice for my isme account i cleared it straight away.


I have been arguing my case with the customer excellence departmetn for weeks now but they are not budging at all they have given me their final response, they are stating my complaint was resolved in october last year and that i was informed of the £40 credit along with ipad put on a buy now pay later basis and my charges were refunded for my isme account, they didn't state any of this in their letter that was sent to me in October but checking my account they did do this but i wanted my charges back for my very account as well, the FOS are waiting for to get back to them about the outcome, I believe i have a case this all started because of the damaged ipad.


Can someone help me please, i apologize for the long essay but it was the only way for me to detail my issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...