Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Briefly: Bought kitchen (£20000) July 2023 Promised 1 week fitting - took 5 Only drinking water was from outside tap, couldn't cook All sorts of problems deliveries, wrong parts, quality of doors, drawers not working, worktops de-laminating, none yet resolved Crux of the matter Wickes want to replace all the marble worktops - sounds reasonable That means no kitchen again for how long? They want us to accept a type of marble we didn't want in the first place and still don't want now, and they are not saying that they will make good any damage that may be done in the process We don't want this work done, we want them to leave the kitchen as it is and give us some compensation My wife and I are both in our 70's, I am disabled and we are both on heart medication, we don't want the stress and disruption again The ombudsman says we must allow Wickes to try again Advice please, is there any point in going to the small claims court?  Thanks  
    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
    • apologies if I'm being dense, doesn't that open me up to the risk of a backdoor ccj? They still have my parents address for me. (I *may* come back to the UK someday!)
    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
    • I take it I should redact names, court numbers etc?
  • 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
      • 162 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

Photo of house on estate agent marketing material

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3772 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

This is a slightly odd one, so please bear with me! I live opposite a pair of semi-detatched houses. One of the houses (number 5) has just been sold by a local estate agent. The house it's attached to (number 7) is my friend's house.


This morning, along with the post, a glossy marketing leaflet from the estate agent who sold number 5 has come through the door. It's got pictures of a number of local properties, with a slogan 'We've Sold All These Houses!'. My friend from number 7 has just been over brandishing a copy of the leaflet, very upset that right there on the front of the leaflet is a picture of number 5 and number 7 (obviously, they're semi-detached!) but she's annoyed that her house is being used on the leaflet even though it's not been sold (or even for sale) by the estate agent, and she's not given them permission to use a picture of her house. I've tried telling her it's fine and it's just not possible to show a picture of one half of a semi-detatched house without it looking silly, but she won't listen - she does not want her house used for marketing purposes.


I suppose I can kind of see her point - it wouldn't bother me, personally, but it bothers her. She's not a CAG user, hence I'm posting here on her behalf - Does anyone know if the estate agent has done anything wrong by using a photo of someone's house on marketing material without the owner's permission?


Thanks in advance!

Link to post
Share on other sites

She could go legal on this and ask them to stop using any picture showing her house on marketing literature. They will probably just agree to not publish again. She could not go directly to any court for any time of judgement/compensation for this. Any court would want her to contact the Estate Agent first and get them to stop. By go legal, I mean she should write to them to get them to stop using any image of her property.


There have been cases before, where someone was selling a calendar of houses in a town and one of the property owners took the calendar company to court. I think because the house was featured for one of the months, without the property owners permission, some form of compensation was paid, based on the number of catalogues sold. I can't remember exactly, as this was years ago. But you could google it to see if any results come up.

We could do with some help from you.



 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group


If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't bother to do anything, the leaflet has been circulated so can't be withdrawn and there probably won't be the same pictures on the next leaflet.



I don't see what her point is anyway as people can see her house when they walk or drive by.

Link to post
Share on other sites



I don't see what her point is anyway as people can see her house when they walk or drive by.


I agree with you, and have made that point, but she feels very aggrieved that the picture has been used without her permission!

Link to post
Share on other sites

the house is not a trade mark or similar device so permission is not needed to photograph and use an image of it (same applies to taking pictures of people in the street) as long as the advert it appears in is not intended to deceive. Can only suggest she contacts estate agent and asks that they dont use it again as she has no intention of moving and it is embarassing to appar as doing so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with ericsbrother, people get too hung up on things like this. as long as the house is visible from the road (ie they have not commited trespass etc to take the photo) then it their choice. has your friend complained to google yet for their use of the house in streetviews?

It is easier to enter a rich man than for a camel to pass a needle

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes...people do get hung about about this, I recently saw a YouTube video of guys taking photos around London, they were approached by 'security guards' at every location, and most threatened to call the police, the police arrived and Im happy to say that the police told the security guards that the photographers were quite entitled to take the pictures.


Of course in this instance, if by claiming the property was sold it caused a loss in some way you may have a hope of pursuing successful legal action but its unlikely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...