Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
      • 160 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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3649 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 All,

 

I use section 75 a lot.

 

Unfortunately i have found that the credit card companies deliberately make it as difficult as possible to claim. This ranges from using low quality staff with no legal skills or experience and arming them with counter policy to claiming letters are lost in post. I have found taking matters to the FOS is unreliable - and depends on who you get - and very often they make judgements counter to law.

 

I note that Section 75 is spread across CAG. I have put this tread together to try and catch as many section 75 experiences as possible, and hope we can use this to present a more united front against the credit card companies. Maybe, if we are lucky, we can even expose some of the bad practices, and help each other make quick and successful claim.

 

Many thanks

 

Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi red-ed

 

The path of least resistance to getting the Credit Card company to play ball under Section 75 and pay out is to have a paper trail demonstrating that the retailer doesn't want to know. I had a sisuation where the product was faulty, I sent it to the retailer, they tested it, they told me that the fault only occurred once whilst they tested it. They stated this in the e-mail they sent me. I sent all my e-mails to the Credit Card company, they didn't want to know. I then wrote a letter of complaint to the CEO of the credit card company with the key COBS principles. A couple of weeks later the Credit Card company credited my account.

 

Credit Card companies will stonewall, in fact they are not big on responsibility or principles, just look at PPI, credit card charges, crazy limits, etc.

 

You have to be relentless in your pursuit of consumer justice. The Credit Card company know that some people will not have the stamina to purse their claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you rebel11,

 

Your story is exactly why i started a discussion on this theme. They try to be as awkward as possible to put you off and send you back to the trader - and i have found they are not always honest and play all sorts of games.

 

I recently contacted Which on the subject - and they advised to claim from the trader and the CC at the same time - and yes be relentless.

 

Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites

COBS - http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/Handbook/COBS

 

6 - Customers' interests - A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.

 

7 - Communications with clients – A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi red-ed

 

The FOS talk about taking into consideration decisions based on current laws and regulations, so they should know about them. They are there to be used in court.

 

Hello Rebel11,

 

Do you think the FOS know about these - i note that it is unlawful if they are ignored. I do wonder if anyone has ever relied on these principles in court ?

 

Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...