Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Return of deposit - ADR and small claims?

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3621 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



I was wondering is someone might be able to give me some advice about our landlord's failure to provide us with the prescribed information and them seeking to deduct £100 from our deposit which is held with DPS.


I will try to keep this brief. My partner and I rented a property from private landlords. We had an assured shorthold tenancy. 3 weeks before the tenancy was due to expire, they gave us notice to leave at the end of the tenancy as they wanted to sell the property. We pointed out they had to give 2 months notice, they didn't provie a full 2 months and didn't give us proper notice but we let it slip as we didn't want the hassle and just wanted to leave.


We left 10 days ago. The landlords mum completed the inventory. She noticed a dent at the bottom of the washing machine. We wrote to the LL after we left to confirm we think the dent has always been there. They said they are going to deduct £100 for the dent and everything else was in order.


We disputed this - it is wear and tear and has not affected the working order of the machine. They told us they are seeking to sell the machine and will make a loss. Whilst doing some research, it came to our attention that we've not been provided with the prescribed information relating to our deposit. We wrote to the LL accordingly. They ignored us. We chased, they've come back and said if we agree to them taking £100 they will release the remainder of our deposit. We wrote to them again clearly explaining that failure to provide the prescribed information is failure to comply with the law and we are entitled to seek the return of our deposit in full and 1-3 times compensation. They have now responded saying they have released all but £100 of our deposit and have requested ADR through DPS.


My question is - can I send a letter before action and accept ADR at the same time? I am intending to say if they give us the remaining £100 then we will not take further legal action but I don't want to end up in a sitution where I start ADR and can't seek legal redress for their failure to provide the prescribed information.


Sorry that was much longer than intended. Any advice would be greatly welcomed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would wait for ADR decision, onus is on LL to prove dent not present at start of T and that £100 is a reasonable claim.

As LL had protected deposit, only failed to provide PI, then Judge (his discretion) may only order your deposit return, less any counterclaim for T damage ie where you are at moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would wait for ADR decision, onus is on LL to prove dent not present at start of T and that £100 is a reasonable claim.

As LL had protected deposit, only failed to provide PI, then Judge (his discretion) may only order your deposit return, less any counterclaim for T damage ie where you are at moment.


Surely failure to supply PI is grounds for judge awarding 1-3x deposit?


Otherwise, ADR should be able to proceed. They need evidence of the dent and of the damages. Do you know the make and age of the washing machine? Can you find a similar one for sale elsewhere?


I recently bought a new washing machine which arrived with a big scratch, so evidence of newness is not evidence of no dent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear that judges ( opinions vary ) do not fully implement the revised housing act rules as written in the statue again, so I would not expect them to fully compensate you.

However no reason why you should not add that to your claim and see what happens, if you do decide to go to court.

You can start the process while still using ADR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...