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

Cash4Phones - unsatisfied County Court judgments


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3850 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

Here are two sets of county court judgments. One relates to their LTD liability company and the other to their trading name.

There are probably more judgments at their other address and also in the name of devicebuyer but we don’t have the resources to buy any more.

 

 

Against their trading name:-

CASH4PHONES NORTHAMPTON CCBC 3QZ43119 22/11/13 £225 Unsatisfied Judgment

15 GATEWAY MEWS, BOUNDS GREEN, LONDON, N11 2UT

 

CASH4PHONES NORTHAMPTON CCBC 3QZ47170 21/11/13 £75 Unsatisfied Judgment

UNIT 15, GATEWAY MEWS, BOUNDS GREEN, LONDON, N11 2UT

 

CASH4PHONES NORTHAMPTON CCBC 3QZ48646 21/11/13 £233 Unsatisfied Judgment

15 GATEWAY MEWS, RING WAY, BOUNDS GREEN, LONDON, N11 2UT

 

CASH4PHONES NORTHAMPTON CCBC 3QZ40566 21/11/13 £21 Unsatisfied Judgment

15 GATEWAY MEWS, BOUNDS GREEN, LONDON, N11 2UT

 

CASH4PHONES NORTHAMPTON CCBC 3QZ45290 14/11/13 £146 Unsatisfied Judgment

15 GATEWAY MEWS, RINGWAY, LONDON, N11 2UT

 

CASH4PHONES NORTHAMPTON CCBC 3QZ43630 13/11/13 £25 Unsatisfied Judgment

15 GATEWAY MEWS, BOUNDS GREEN, LONDON, N11 2UT

 

CASH4PHONES NORTHAMPTON CCBC 3QZ42481 12/11/13 £225 Unsatisfied Judgment

15 GATEWAY MEWS, BOUNDS GREEN, LONDON, N11 2UT

 

CASH4PHONES NORTHAMPTON CCBC 3QZ40816 11/11/13 £154 Unsatisfied Judgment

15 GATEWAY MEWS, RING WAY, LONDON, N11 2UT

 

CASH4PHONES NORTHAMPTON CCBC 3QZ37921 31/10/13 £72 Unsatisfied Judgment

15 GATEWAY MEWS, BOUNDS GREEN, LONDON, N11 2UT

 

CASH4PHONES NORTHAMPTON CCBC 3QZ38352 31/10/13 £495 Unsatisfied Judgment

15 GATEWAY MEWS, BOUNDS GREEN, LONDON, N11 2UT

 

CASH4PHONES NORTHAMPTON CCBC 2QZ58142 12/03/13 £59 Unsatisfied Judgment

15 GATEWAY MEWS, RING WAY, LONDON, N11 2UT

 

* CASH 4 PHONES NORTHAMPTON CCBC 3QZ58642 21/11/13 £596 Unsatisfied Judgment

15 GATEWAY MEWS, RING WAY, LONDON, N11 2UT

 

* CASH 4 PHONES NORTHAMPTON CCBC 3QZ42525 14/11/13 £262 Unsatisfied Judgment

15 GATEWAY MEWS, RING WAY, LONDON, N11 2UT

 

* CASH 4 PHONES NORTHAMPTON CCBC 3QZ42598 08/11/13 £63 Unsatisfied Judgment

15 GATEWAY MEWS, RING WAY, LONDON, N11 2UT

 

* CASH 4 PHONES NORTHAMPTON CCBC 3QZ41895 07/11/13 £177 Unsatisfied Judgment

15 GATEWAY MEWS, BOUNDS GREEN, LONDON, N11 2UT

 

* T/AS CASH 4 PHONES NORTHAMPTON CCBC 3QT90709 07/10/13 £85 Unsatisfied Judgment

15 GATEWAY MEWS, BOUNDS GREEN, LONDON, N11 2UT

 

 

Against them as a Ltd company

C4P TRADING LIMITED NORTHAMPTON CCBC 3QZ49705 22/11/13 £205 Unsatisfied Judgment

SUITE 21, 5 SPRING STREET, PADDINGTON, LONDON, W2 3AQ

 

C4PTRADING LTD NORTHAMPTON CCBC 3QZ43550 13/11/13 £225 Unsatisfied Judgment

SUITE 21, 5 SPRING STREET, PADDINGTON, LONDON, W2 3AQ

 

C 4 P TRADING LTD NORTHAMPTON CCBC 3QT90709 07/10/13 £85 Unsatisfied Judgment

15 GATEWAY MEWS, BOUNDS GREEN, LONDON, N11 2UT

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that there may be problems enforcing the judgment as no one seems to be able to find Cash4phones

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been told the industrial unit looks unused.

Solicitors agent unable to serve documents.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is I gather no evidence that the industrial unit is an''accommodation '' address.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is I gather no evidence that the industrial unit is an''accommodation '' address.[/

 

This is an outrageous in-justice. People are getting a county court judgement but are un-able to enforce it. What is trading standards doing about this. I've noticed that with a little intellect and a little digging that someone had un-covered that the MD of the company is in Cyprus and that the website is run through a Russian company; so what more can be done to stop this fraudulent crime from continuing??? Where does the police stand in this matter? I'm going to contact my MP after I have logged my details at the small claims court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that reporting it to your MP - and especially complaining about lack of action by TS and the police is a very good idea.

I can tell you that I have made several attempts over the past year or more to report this to both of them.

 

TS are inaccessible - and there is no central unit - it is completely fragmented into local authroity jurisdictions - which of course, is a wholly outdated idea in the face of national website companies. The existing model of TS is fine for dealing with local physical business - but not for virtual commerce.

 

The police have regularly said that they will not take details from me as I am not a victim - even though through this website we have the means to put them in contact with lots of victims.

Meanwhile the bodies of victims pile up all around us.

Tell that to your MP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Money Box feature they commented on the passing the back by different TS, because the Paddington address is Westminister it was deemed to be a Westiminster TS problem but of course they don't actually reside there and are not doubt Actually situated elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...