Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please will you monitor the thread for a reply on Sunday. Also when you make posts please can you spice them with lots of paragraph spaces etc because it becomes very difficult to read on a small screen such as a telephone and it tends to put people off.
    • My son purchased a car from BIG MW in April. 6 weeks later we sent a letter confirming we were rejecting the car due to it having modifications we were not made aware of - it’s been remapped and also changes to the exhaust removing one part and replacing with a straight pipe. This was confirmed to us by a garage we paid to assess the car. Things have gone fairly smoothly BIG MW sent their own assessor to the car 9 days ago which states the exhaust is immediately obvious when inspecting under car (something their 200 point check claims to do) and has also raised issues over the front tyres. Now BIG MW seem to have stalled, fobbing us off as to why they can’t confirm rejection at the moment and after good progress, the last 9 days since the assessment it’s not progressed at all. The latest is needing the finance company to confirm the outstanding balance - we paid it off within the cooling down period and have sent evidence of this, plus surely a HPI check they have easy access to would confirm this. So now another week passes with a car that can’t be driven and is costing a fortune to insure to sit on the drive. BIG had the car MOT’d in January and it passed with no advisories but the tyres are very poor and should have been picked up and emissions from the exhaust are high and causing a warning light so I have concerns as to whether the MOT is even genuine. I’ve threatened legal action if rejection wasn’t confirmed today, they are aware I work alongside lawyers who deal with disputes.  Any advice as to how I make them stop fobbing me off with delays and get them to confirm rejection? Also the car has done 2,500 miles since we’ve had it - what sort of deduction is reasonable - I’m loathe to accept any as they misrepresented the car and have dragged this out longer than needed. Thanks
    • Please will you check back on Sunday at some point for a full response
    • Many thanks for the advice. Form en route Monday a little late after sorting witnessing by a solicitor. 
    • Good spot, LFI. So you're meant to find a space, park up and then find a ticket machine within five minutes of entering the car park? Very fair... HB
  • 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

Types of ET Meetings


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3750 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,

 

last week I went down with a friend to the local ET centre, she is considering an ET (but I don't think it is a strong claim) and she wanted to see a case in action. We dropped in on what seemed to be a PHR, and which appeared to be somewhat fractious.

 

The claimant was unrepresented and, during the course of the time that we were there, complained more than once to the lone judge that (a) he, the claimant, had no idea that he was going to be attending such a formal hearing that day - he had come along with some notes/bullet-points and no bundle, rather than formalised legal arguments etc; backed up with examples (which the other side's solicitors had done!). The Tribunal had not informed him it was to be such a formal hearing, which left him wholly unprepared - especially lacking in supporting documentation for his notes. The judge had no sympathy for him. We left after half an hour or so, it was a bit of an eye-opener for my friend (not a bad thing I suppose!)

 

Can anyone tell me if there is an onus on Tribunals to clearly inform unrepresented claimants what sort of meeting they are letting themselves in for before they turn up? It is not an unreasonable assumption for a new claimant to make - that all meetings, prior to the main hearing, will be somewhat more 'relaxed' (especially if they have already gone through a 'harmless' CMD). The guy we saw was clearly left floundering due to his ignorance. Should the judge have postponed the meeting perhaps?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SweetLorraine

 

I think if your representing yourself you need to do lots of research. That research would of told you the kind of preparation that must be done as a minimum. The Tribunal Chairperson would have cut him some slack, but I suppose if he couldn't be bothered to do the minimum work required he can't expect any help. With the internet there is so much help (There is a lot of stuff).

 

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/work_w/work_problems_at_work_e/work_employment_tribunals_e/preparing_an_employment_tribunal_case.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

CMDs actually no longer exist - since the summer, all hearings are now "preliminary hearings" and can cover a wide range of issues.

 

The claimant would have been sent an order, so really it was up to them to prepare themselves. Preparation and research is key - it's still a legal process, so turning up unprepared isn't really acceptable!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Going to an ET is after all ultimately the choice of an individual, so it is deemed logical (and probably common sensical! ;) ) that they will be keen to assist themselves as far as they could. They are not expected to be lawyers- and that is for what, as Rebel says, they would be cut slack. But to turn up unprepared means that that fellow was: unable to assist the Tribunal. So what can they do? Double guess him perhaps? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the valuable insights. I had a bad enough time when I went to Tribunal ages ago - Lord knows what would have happened nowadays?... :peep:

 

Perhaps some people still hope to engage with the process and simply play it by ear. Not a good idea at all. Though the reading that I did beforehand did not prepare me for the shenanigans that took place. Ancient history to me now thankfully..

 

Maybe the charges help stop some people from becoming their own worst enemy, by stopping them beginning the process in the first place. It would be interesting to see the number of new claims since the introduction of the new changes/charges compared with the 'old' days!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...