Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Received the claimants Directions Questionnaire today.  Haven't had anything else through. N180_Redacted.pdf
    • Hi team, I should of really walked away when they said the vehicle had no v5 and I would have to complete v62. They only disclosed v62 form after all documents for finance was signed. However, I needed a vehicle as I was the only driver in my household and my sister was extremly ill and I had to take her to hospital appointments. I purchased a vehicle from big motoring world on the 31/06/24. After driving away the vehicle the very same day I could hear a very distinctive water sloshing noise come from the interior. I then decided to take the vehicle back to branch 15 mins after driving away. The manager came for a ride and said he could hear something but this issue was ‘minor’ and it was my psychologial thinking that made the issue even worse. Manager was very rude. I then took the vehicle home knowing full well it would give me nothing but grief. A day after the rear left tyre started losing air. I know they could say this was probably due to the driver however I believe the issue was present before purchasing vehicle. I called up Audi and my finance company and explained situation. Audi could accomodate me for the 13th for a diagnostic. Finance company told me to take to an independant garage and not BMW. Motonovo been helpful in this situation.  I took vehicle to Audi for a diagnostic. Unfortunantly, they done an Audicam and the technician somewhat resolved the issue without guidance from myself. No charge was applicable as this was a health check. However, I wanted the diagnostic. The car still has water inside. Audi are saying this is a common fault. However, I have no confidence in the vehicle. I have emailed bigassist with all my findings and commanded them to collect the vehicle. Audi shall also be sending me an email next week of the issues they discovered. This was issue pre exisitng. It is still below 30 days, can I still reject? Do i need to send a letter? I have been very direct to BMW that I no longer want the vehicle. please can we assist    
    • lies is all they have @dx to support their adoration of 'little feet'  like trump, farage and bad penny wannabe 'little feet' caligulas and neros, empty of anything worthwhile.
    • I bought my house 2 years ago. The previous owner had died. I continue to recieve parking fines and communication from DVLA in the name of the dead person, despite contacting DVLA via post to inform them I am the new owner of the property. I have sent them proof of purchase and ownership but the communications continue to arrive. Aside from using "return to sender", does anyone have any idea how to stop this and get DVLA to update their records? Not sure if relevant but the Tax class on the vehicle is disabled meaning that the price of vehicle tax is £0 per year. I assume someone is using this to get free vehicle tax which is up to them, but I'm bored of fighting with parking charge companies and getting threatening letters, as whoever is doing this is also not very good at paying for parking.
    • I haven't heard of them asking for photographic evidence in this way before – but I don't think it will really pose a problem. Have you got a history of sending parcels which were then lost and you had to claim for? When you send your letter of claim? Was the item properly declared? Was the item correctly valued? Please answer these questions and then take at least a couple of days reading very thoroughly the stories on this sub- forum. There are lots of them. Read some of the pinned topics at the top which will explain the principles and then read the stories to see other people's experience. Post up your letter of claim in PDF format so we can see what you sent.  
  • 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

DWP lose at court over MWA

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3633 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



The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

specifically the retrospective legislation they brought in to avoid paying out has been declared a violation of human right to fair trial.


GOV is appealing though. Wish they would stop wasting tax payers money and hold their hands up



The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"We're pleased the court recognised that if claimants do not play by the rules and meet their conditions to do all they can to look for work and get a job, we can stop their benefits," the spokeswoman added. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What angers me about this link is that labours own Work And Pensions secretary Liam Byrne supported Irritable Bowell Symptom retrospective workfare rule in pushing through the original emergency legislation. This decision resulted in stopping claimants getting back their unlawfully sanctioned benefits. Labours hands are just as dirty in all of this as the Tories

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...