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

Wildcat vs Barclays - and about time too ** WON **


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6181 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

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Absolutely, when I heard about that case I just thought "Oh No, to get so very close and then have a precedent set just as I was on the verge of winning" You can't believe how relieved I was when I got the letter this morning, up until yesterday I had just assumed that getting my money back was a foregone conclusion, but for a while there I thought it might not happen after all.

 

Drinks all round.

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 06/11/2006 - no statements yet

Prelim Letter sent 13/11/2006

"Sorry you're unhappy" received 16/11/2006

LBA sent 27/11/2006

Reply to LBA with 50% offer received 01/12/2006

"Thanks, but no Thanks" sent 01/12/2006

MOCL filed 11/12/06 - deemed served 17/12/06

MOCL acknowledged 29/12/06

Non compliance with S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent 04/01/07

Statements Received 08/01/07

MOCL Defended 12/01/07

AQ received 17/01/07

AQ done and delivered 19/01/07

Court date 22/05/2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well - despite a letter and 2 faxes saying I wanted them to settle by cheque, and verbal agreement from Paul Quinn, that they would do this, they've gone and put the cash into my account - Oh Well money's money, I'll just move it myself - after making a donation, of course.

 

Can one of the mods please change the title of this thread to

 

**********WON**********

 

Thanks for everybody's help and advice - I wouldnt have had the bottle to do this on my own - it's been fantastic. Don't give up any of the rest of you, it's worth all the hassle.

 

This whole business has had 4 fantastic outcomes:-

 

1) I've got 2 grand in charges back

 

2) I've opened a parachute account, which I've been stashing the odd few quid in every week, since the whole thing started, as an emergency fund - there's now 2 grand in there as well.

 

3) I've gained a huge amount of confidence in dealing with big institutions - not scared of the court system or banks or anything, any more.

 

4) A strong realisation of what can be done to fight something that's wrong when everybody gets together - it takes me back to my poll-tax rebel days.

 

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 06/11/2006 - no statements yet

Prelim Letter sent 13/11/2006

"Sorry you're unhappy" received 16/11/2006

LBA sent 27/11/2006

Reply to LBA with 50% offer received 01/12/2006

"Thanks, but no Thanks" sent 01/12/2006

MOCL filed 11/12/06 - deemed served 17/12/06

MOCL acknowledged 29/12/06

Non compliance with S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent 04/01/07

Statements Received 08/01/07

MOCL Defended 12/01/07

AQ received 17/01/07

AQ done and delivered 19/01/07

Court date 22/05/2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks for the title change. mods.

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 06/11/2006 - no statements yet

Prelim Letter sent 13/11/2006

"Sorry you're unhappy" received 16/11/2006

LBA sent 27/11/2006

Reply to LBA with 50% offer received 01/12/2006

"Thanks, but no Thanks" sent 01/12/2006

MOCL filed 11/12/06 - deemed served 17/12/06

MOCL acknowledged 29/12/06

Non compliance with S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent 04/01/07

Statements Received 08/01/07

MOCL Defended 12/01/07

AQ received 17/01/07

AQ done and delivered 19/01/07

Court date 22/05/2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...