Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • you can have your humble opinion.... You are very new to all this private parking speculative invoice game you have very quickly taken it upon yourself to be all over this forum, now to the extent of moving away from your initial thread with your own issue that you knew little about handling to littering the forum and posting on numerous established and existing threads, where advice has already been given or a conclusion has already resulted, with your theories conclusions and observations which of course are very welcomed. BUT... in some instances, like this one...you dont quite match the advice that the forum and it's members have gathered over a very long consensual period given in a tried and trusted consistent mannered thoughtful approach. one could even call it forum hi-jacking and that is becoming somewhat worrying . dx
    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕 The more I read this forum and the more I engage with it's incredible users, the more I learn and the more my knowledge expands. If my case gets to court, the Judge will dismiss it after I utter my first sentence, and you DCBL and Highview don't even know why .... OMG! .... So excited to get to court!
    • Though it would be Highview you would  pursue. DCBL are nonentities-on their best day,
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
    • Six months of conflict have also taken a heavy economic toll.View the full article
  • 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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3627 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

My friend got a tv from brighthouse aprox 2 years ago

there are still 50 weeks left to run on the agreement,

 

on the 27th of march the tv was hit by lightning

she contacted the store and they came for the tv on the 28th march

 

they brought a replacement tv for her of different specs and a smaller screen,

the store insisted she continued to pay the origional price of the higher spec tv which she did for about 5 weeks.

 

After numerous calls to the store a replacement tv was found and delivered to her house

this tv was unfit for purpose as it would not sit on the stand correctly and kept tipping forward.

it has now been 53 days since the incident and she is no further forward,

 

she has stopped making payments due to the fact the tv she now has is not the same spec as the origional tv,

the store keeps fobbing her off and seem unwilling to help but are badgering her for payment.

 

What are her rights?

has a reasonable amount of time passed and is she now entitled to a refund?

 

she has over the last 2 years paid aprox £750 for this tv and pays the relevant insurances to the store.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a formal complaint to BH head office pointing out all the problems and that the "insurance" must cover replacing the set with an equivalent product that is fit for purpose.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

With any agreement, stopping payment is never the way to a resolution.

Having said that, if you don't have what you are paying for, then I can see the justification.

 

 

I think you will find BH are looking to find a returned or repossessed tv somewhere in their group that matches yours as they are so intent on making profit that replacing like with like means replacing with a second hand one and not new if yours can't be repaired.

 

 

I trust this is a 'Hire Purchase' agreement ??

If this is HP, then she should claim back the insurance as mis-sold. She is only renting the tv and it still belongs to BH so it is 'their' responsibility to repair it and not hers as in paying insurance.

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thanks for the replies

 

yes it is a HP

 

i found this while searching BH website for a code of practice Damage Liability Cover (DLC)

means that you will not have to continue to pay for your product if it is damaged or stolen.

 

She has been paying this and the other insurance cover.

 

The tv can not be fixed and the shop informed her they were sourcing a replacement for her but it has been nearly 7 weeks now.

 

They have been calling her to ask for payment and she is finding it hard to get in touch with the manager of the store

they keep telling her he is not available and no assistants seem to be able to help her to sort it out

they just keep saying she needs to deal with the manager.

 

Will tell her to get in touch with head office to see if it can be resolved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning elly2

 

Thank you for taking time to raise this matter to my attention.

 

If a customer's item needs to be sent for a repair to our Service Centre, we would supply the customer with a similar loan item that they can use just up until their item has been repaired and sent back.

 

If the item cannot be repaired, we have a 'like for like' replacement policy which means that we would provide a replacement model that is of the same age, value and specification if the exact model is no longer available and has been discontinued.

 

I am sorry to hear that it seems your friend has not received a suitable replacement that she is happy with and also for the length of time that has passed to try and resolve this matter so far.

 

I kindly request for the account holder to contact our Customer Relations Team on 0800 526 069 or to email us at [email protected] as we will be able to investigate this matter further and help resolve this to her satisfaction.

 

Many Thanks

 

Jason

Web Relations Team

Link to post
Share on other sites

By all means contact as requested above, but take no crap from them, and make sure she puts in a claim for return of 'all' the premiums paid for this invisible and not required insurance.

She should also negotiate a reduced payment for the weeks she has been fobbed off with a different tv.

 

 

If you need to go higher [email protected] is the head man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I think that is what is anoying her the most she was paying for a 40 inch tv but has a 32 inch older lower spec model which obviously would be lower payments in the store she feels she has given them adequate time to sort the issue out but is now just being fobbed off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...