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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Panorama Programme - 7 April - Discussion


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3665 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

Spanner time

 

 

The "warrant" is NAME specific correct? it is for a NAMED person? Correct, the seizure of any car MUST be SPECIFIC to the NAMED person on the WARANT, not some random member of the PUBLIC Correct? therefore in my humble opinion the EA WILL be at fault for WRONGFUL seizure if they take the vehicle belonging to a different person NOT named on the warrant, so following my basic chain of thought here can ANYONE confirm this and make ANY comments please!

 

 

Sorry to all for the use of the BOLD function but this will let you see where I am trying to take this

 

 

MM

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I think this programme highlighted a couple of bad cases and bad cookies. It doesn't seem to be how it is done all the time, certainly not on the surface.

 

The sheriffs are coming shows bailiffs checking with the DVLA before taking a car, being firm but fair etc. but then I suppose that could be because they are knowingly filmed and apply the letter of the law correctly and do things as they should.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this programme highlighted a couple of bad cases and bad cookies. It doesn't seem to be how it is done all the time, certainly not on the surface. That is a very blinkered approach

 

The sheriffs are coming shows bailiffs checking with the DVLA before taking a car, being firm but fair etc. but then I suppose that could be because they are knowingly filmed and apply the letter of the law correctly and do things as they should. Not at all, pre 6 April there was a distinct difference between the likes of Bailiffs collecting for Council Tax/PCN's & High Court Enforcement Officers collecting on High Court Writs

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You think that's how it's done most of the time? Post April 6th , there is no difference?

 

Well I think I certainly know more about it than you do, if you want to go round wearing rose tinted specs blaming everything on those that have difficulty paying you are living in a totally different world.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to know about Bailiffs you should have read a lot more threads on here and you would see how they behave rather than suffer from foot in mouth. I was always taught to engage brain before mouth.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this programme highlighted a couple of bad cases and bad cookies. It doesn't seem to be how it is done all the time, certainly not on the surface.

 

The sheriffs are coming shows bailiffs checking with the DVLA before taking a car, being firm but fair etc. but then I suppose that could be because they are knowingly filmed and apply the letter of the law correctly and do things as they should.

 

I wish it was simply the case the program maker had just 'struck lucky' when filming the two incidents aired on Panorama, the reality is they could have made an hour long program 52 weeks of the year and still have room for a another series.

 

There is a vast difference between bailiffs collecting for pcn's, council tax etc.and High Court Enforcement Officers (HCEO's) acting on a writ but, if you read through the post's on here you will see they are not quite 'whiter than white' as you seem to view them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The posts on here though aren't always a true reflection. Don't forget we are only getting on side of the story on here.

 

I thought that hceo's also collected on unpaid fines and council tax etc?

 

The one side of the story from someone who may be vulnerable, and the same bailiff companies crop up, time and time again, where they have done something not quite kosher.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The posts on here though aren't always a true reflection, a true reflection of what?

 

Don't forget we are only getting on side of the story on here. we do indeed but questioning their bailiffs 'enforcement' is what brings the poster's here in the first place

 

I thought that hceo's also collected on unpaid fines and council tax etc?

 

Then it just goes to show how little you understand things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay got it the first time. No need for the spam.

 

As I said I'm sure I've seen hceos collecting on unpaid council tax. If this is incorrect, then I bow to your superior knowledge.

 

You realise that hate is a path to the dark side don't you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The confusion may lie where some large HCEOs also act as bailiffs collecting council tax.

 

Marston for instance have the words High Court Enforcement on the documentation that council tax debtors receive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...