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

Dreadful service re: repair


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3946 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

I'm posting this on behalf of a friend who has a contract with T-Mobile that has another year to run. She sent her phone for repair way back at the beginning of the year. It was away for over two weeks and when it came back the problem was still there so she had to send it off again in July when they told her it would be "between two and four weeks"

 

There was no offer of a replacement, even though it was the same fault that hadn’t been fixed properly before, and they have continued taking to monthly charge out of her account while she has been without the phone. She is having to use her old PAYG phone and this is obviously costing her as well.

 

The phone has now been away for six weeks. They are still taking direct debits from her account and, although a very nice lady promised to refund 30 quid which has not yet been done, they insist that they are not in breach of contract and she has to keep paying the monthly charge irrespective of whether or not she has the phone. I suspect this is rubbish and that they are just quoting their ‘policy’ and ignoring Consumer Law.

 

I think, if the phone is not returned forthwith, fully working – ie; tomorrow – she should tell them they are in breach of contract and demand, at the very least a new phone and, more fairly, the option to terminate the contract. Further if the phone is returned and the same problem resurfaces as it has in the past, the same should apply.

 

Does anybody have any thoughts or experience relevant to this situation. We’d love to hear from you

 

Thanks

 

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Little bit more info posted by my friend after I sent the original post for her to check:

 

"That sounds great...only two things they may have issue with. When my phone was returned to me it WAS working properly but after a while the same problem started happening . Also I was offered a replacement phone, but as it was a simple one like the one I already had I turned the offer down not thinking that of course I should have taken it because I wouldn't have to use my payg phone . Didn't think of that at the time cos I was annoyed. But I was never offered a Samsung Galaxy S3 (her existing contract phone) replacement"

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are correct, the phone has no bearing on the contract, it was a free gift for your friend to sign up to the tariff, however you do still have rights. Consumer law also protects the business, and they would be within their rights to ask your friend to prove the problem was there at the time of manufacturing, please keep this in mind before "demanding" resolution.

 

I would tread carefully as they hold most of the cards here. They are obligated to repair, replace or refund. They are allowed to take a "reasonable time" to repair this. You have to persuade them that this is going beyond a reasonable time.

 

"Gestures of goodwill" are nice, for the airtime that your friend cannot use. Also, can your friend not use her SIM in her PAYG phone? At least she could make some use of her tariff.

If in doubt, contact a qualified insured legal professional (or my wife... she knows EVERYTHING)

 

Or send a cheque or postal order payable to Reclaim the Right Ltd.

to

923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE

 

 

Click here if you fancy an email address that shows you mean business! (only £6 and that will really help CAG)

 

If you can't donate, please use the Internet Search boxes on the CAG pages - these will generate a small but regular income for the site

 

Please also consider using the

C.A.G. Toolbar

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to this, the phone has still not been returned. It's now nearly two months and they promised two weeks ago that it had been despatched from their repair centre, was on the way back to the shop and would be ready for collection 'within a week'. We're beginning to think it's got lost and, if that's the case, whether it was a free gift or not, surely they are responsible? Any views gratefully receievd

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try sending a polite email to the CEO

 

Mr Olaf Swantee Chief Executive

Email address: olaf.swantee@ee.co.uk

 

Give him the account number, mobile phone number and outline the facts. Keep in mind that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar ;)

If in doubt, contact a qualified insured legal professional (or my wife... she knows EVERYTHING)

 

Or send a cheque or postal order payable to Reclaim the Right Ltd.

to

923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE

 

 

Click here if you fancy an email address that shows you mean business! (only £6 and that will really help CAG)

 

If you can't donate, please use the Internet Search boxes on the CAG pages - these will generate a small but regular income for the site

 

Please also consider using the

C.A.G. Toolbar

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...