Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Debt Specialists Ltd - False advertising

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3791 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

ASA Adjudication on Debt Specialists Ltd Debt Specialists Ltd


8‒10 Bolton Street









4 December 2013



Text Message





Number of complaints:






Complaint Ref:







A text message, from a Payment Protection Insurance claims management company, stated "We're contacting you regarding your PPI claim, we now have details of how much you could be due, reply POST and we will post a pack out".




Two complainants challenged whether the claim "We're contacting you regarding your PPI claim, we now have details of how much you could be due" was misleading and could be substantiated, because they had never taken out such cover.


CAP Code (Edition 12)





Debt Specialists Ltd said the text message was sent by a third-party company on their behalf. They said the message was sent to recipients on a speculative basis to make them aware that they offered a service in helping to reclaim Payment Protection Insurance (PPI). The message alluded to providing the recipient with an opportunity to get further information on making a PPI claim, should they have taken out PPI, and the message was not intended to imply that they had details of the recipient having taken out PPI.


Debt Specialists said the message was intended to be personal to recipients, which was why it stated "We're contacting you regarding your PPI claim". The wording "we now have details of how much you could be due" related to how they would work with the recipient after they responded to the text message. They said that when recipients responded to the text message they contacted the recipient to discuss whether they may have been mis-sold PPI and what the details of that may have been.



They then worked with the recipient to calculate how much compensation they might be owed should they wish to pursue a claim, and would provide information on their fees. After making those calculations they would be able to provide an indicative figure to the recipient as to how much they could receive in total.





The ASA considered consumers would understand the claim "We're contacting you regarding your PPI claim, we now have details of how much you could be due" to mean that the company sending the message had definitive information, prior to contacting the recipient, that the recipient had been mis-sold PPI and how much money they would be able to claim back.



We understood that in fact Debt Specialists did not have such information and the text messages were sent to recipients on a purely speculative basis. Debt Specialists were only able to determine whether a recipient might have a PPI claim and the amount of a potential claim once the recipient responded to the text message and provided that information to them directly. We therefore concluded the claim in the ad had not been substantiated, and was therefore misleading.


The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).




The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Debt Specialists not to make claims for which they did not hold substantiation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...