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

Apcoa + Roxburghe **Ticket Cancelled**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3789 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

In July 2013 the DVLA sent the following warning to BPA Ltd and/or it's members - my emphasis and underline

 

"We have been made aware that the DVLA has started receiving correspondence from operators asking the DVLA for their opinions on new versions of their notices. Please be advised that the DVLA cannot endorse any wording or confirm that wording provided is suitable - this would fall under the remit of the BPA.

 

The DVLA have advised that they have an expectation that operator notices do the following...

 

• Clearly explain why the notice has been issued to the person named on the notice

• Clearly explain whether Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) is applicable in the circumstances or not

 

BPA share this expectation.

 

DVLA has reminded us that it reserves the right to suspend operators from access to their database if timescales are regularly ignored. Indeed, you cannot pursue keepers for payment if you are unable to send the Notice to Keeper within the timescales of Schedule 4. This could also be in breach of paragraph 21.5 of the Code."

 

Note the weasel words 'regularly ignored' - who defines or interprets the word 'regularly'?

 

Either way, one claim of keeper liability outside the statutory time scales is one too many as far as I'm concerned, the BPA Ltd and it's members pushed hard and campaigned for this legislation, it;s their Act so therefore they should comply with it 100%

 

What I'm saying is don't let the DVLA weasel out of taking punitive action against the companies concerned.

 

Furthermore, as there is clear evidence of an inability to comply with PoFA timescales ACPOA should be immediately audited to check the timescales of all it's other Notices sent out under PoFA.

 

Bear all this in mind when the DVLA try and bury this complaint

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

There's no ref number on the letter so I'm going to hazard a guess that the DVLA won't have recorded your complaint as a complaint and are merely treating it as 'other correspondence' (and therefore massaging the complaint figures).

 

I'm also going to hazard a guess that the contract that ACPOA have with the DVLA states that the data is given for PoFA purposes only. As this signed contract is what under pins 'reasonable cause' for electronic data requests then we need to see whether or not it authorises data use for non-PoFA purposes. If it doesn't then either the data request/release was unlawful as the contract doesn't authorise non-PoFA purposes or ACPOA were chasing under PoFA whether their NtK states that or not.

 

So, in the first instance send this back.................

 

 

Dear Mr Dunford

 

Thank you for your letter dated x December 2013. I would be grateful if you would now address the following matters please,

 

What is the unique DVLA internal reference number that relates to my complaint

When was my complaint recorded as a formal complaint within the DVLA

What is the unique BPA Ltd internal reference number that relates to your referral to the BPA Ltd

 

Next, you state that the request for my data was 'submitted using an electronic enquiry system' - I understand that 'reasonable cause' for such enquiries is made under the strict terms of a contractual agreement with the DVLA. Please therefore provide me with a copy of the contractual agreement between ACPOA and the DVLA that authorises ACPOA to use data for both PoFA and non-PoFA purposes.

 

Finally, you state that the DVLA accepts the explanation offered by the BPA Ltd concerning the misuse of my data by Roxburghe. I am aware that earlier this year the DVLA was heavily criticised over it's flawed investigation into Premier Parking Solutions in respect of the 'RAME charity' complaint during an internal review as follows, "My conclusion is that the case was not handled correctly. DVLA officers accepted at face value the account of events provided by Premier Parking Solutions and did not check the information provided. This compromised the investigation and led to the Agency making a decision with only some of the facts"

 

I would be grateful therefore if you would provide me with a copy of all of the evidence that the DVLA called for in this case from ACPOA, Roxburghe and the BPA Ltd during the course of the DVLA investigation and upon which the conclusions contained in your letter of x December 2013 are based.

 

Kind regards

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pete,

 

The draft I did for you was in response to your "help needed for a stern letter to DVLA" - I thought it easier to actually draft you a letter rather than throw some suggestions in which then gets into a muddle. The draft was based on my almost intimate knowledge and experience of dealing with the DVLA over the last 3-4 years.

 

However you have raised two issues of concern

 

The first is my suggestion that you ask for sight of the contract between ACPOA and the DVLA - your 'guess' about that suggestion is unfortunately wrong

 

The next is the RAME case that you wish to have a link to

 

a) I can't give you a link because (i) there isn't one and (ii) in any case I don't have the authority of the RAME to publish or circulate the detail (although in due course the BBC South West should be putting an item out on it) and (iii) it is now at the Step 3 complaint stage with the DVLA CEO

 

and that's why

 

b) I quoted the salient text from that case that supports your argument, that's all you need. You either trust me and use it or you don't.

 

 

Good luck

 

Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...