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

chezt v's Littlewoods Catalogue **I WON**


chezt
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5923 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

Hi Chez, Bill and others. Hope you're all well.

 

Sorry for butting in. I'll have my own thread on this soon, I reckon.

 

Chez, as you know I've been looking into my wife's Studio (S.A.R now sent) and decided to have a look into her LXDirect as well.

 

I had a chat with Mrs. Bear and had another read through this thread again. When I got to their letter in post 28 and reached this bit:

 

"We believe we have gone to considerable lengths to reduce the risk of you incurring a default charge including sending at least one reminder before default charges are applied"

 

Mrs Bear's comment was, "Yeah that'll be feckin' right." Let me tell you why.

 

Mrs Bear's benefits changed as did the date she got them, so she had to change all her payment dates. When she called and asked about changing her payment date to one week after it normally got paid, LXDirect said, "they couldn't do it and that was it; if your circumstances have changed, Tough!!" :evil: :evil: :evil:

 

So, just about every month for Gawd knows how long she gets a 15 quid Admin charge.

 

So, to my question... Is this what you are claiming back from them? I'd value any input you have, yours too, Bill. :)

 

OB

Please read the Stickies and FAQs. Your question may have been answered already.

 

Old Bear vs. NatWest - won after first letter £600

Mrs Bear vs. Studio - won after first letter £360

Old Bear vs. Abbey - won after first letter - only £50, but it's the principle

Old Bear vs. Black Horse - £117 of charges wiped off 2 loans, but more WILL follow

Mrs Bear vs. Index (Littlewoods) - SAR sent - 2/2/2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 354
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks Chez, that's what I wanted to know. I'll prepare the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) as soon as...

 

Look out for my new thread.

 

& fees for arranging a reduced payment.
You are joking, right??!!!

 

What a bunch of edited :evil: :evil: :evil:

Please read the Stickies and FAQs. Your question may have been answered already.

 

Old Bear vs. NatWest - won after first letter £600

Mrs Bear vs. Studio - won after first letter £360

Old Bear vs. Abbey - won after first letter - only £50, but it's the principle

Old Bear vs. Black Horse - £117 of charges wiped off 2 loans, but more WILL follow

Mrs Bear vs. Index (Littlewoods) - SAR sent - 2/2/2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Bill; that 'couldn't' should have said 'wouldn't'. It wasn't a case of being unable, it was a case of being unwilling.

 

Trouble I have is my wife is a bit of a cissy on the phone. I'm doing what I can to change that and make her see the light.

 

Sorry for the minor hijack, Chez. x

 

OB

 

btw. I've started a couple of new threads for my claims, I'd be grateful for any input you chaps may have.

Please read the Stickies and FAQs. Your question may have been answered already.

 

Old Bear vs. NatWest - won after first letter £600

Mrs Bear vs. Studio - won after first letter £360

Old Bear vs. Abbey - won after first letter - only £50, but it's the principle

Old Bear vs. Black Horse - £117 of charges wiped off 2 loans, but more WILL follow

Mrs Bear vs. Index (Littlewoods) - SAR sent - 2/2/2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Do the Muffin everyone, Chez won her fight.

 

avatar30418_61.gifavatar30418_61.gifavatar30418_61.gifavatar30418_61.gifavatar30418_61.gif

 

About time, too; I thought you were never going to win this one.

 

Way to go, Chezt!!!! avatar30418_61.gif

 

Now that I know for sure that Littlewoods will pay out, I think it's about time for Mrs Bear to go after all her little 15 quidders (

 

Really happy for you, sweetie.

 

OB

  • Haha 1

Please read the Stickies and FAQs. Your question may have been answered already.

 

Old Bear vs. NatWest - won after first letter £600

Mrs Bear vs. Studio - won after first letter £360

Old Bear vs. Abbey - won after first letter - only £50, but it's the principle

Old Bear vs. Black Horse - £117 of charges wiped off 2 loans, but more WILL follow

Mrs Bear vs. Index (Littlewoods) - SAR sent - 2/2/2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...