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
      • 162 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

Arrow/shoesmith amend ordinary case day before court! - **decree of absolvitor issued **

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3323 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'm hoping for some advice re. an ordinary cause action I'm defending in Scotland .


The Pursuer is Arrow Global with Shoosmiths acting as their solicitors

- pursuing an alleged debt of £7,239 which they claim was assigned to them by HBOS.


The last day for submitting any adjustments to either the writ or defences is 1st April (i.e tomorrow!!).


I had previously requested a lot of relevant documentation regarding this case,

but heard nothing until today when Shoosmiths telephoned me,

saying they now had the documentation I had requested and asking if they could send it to me by e-mail,

adding that they would send the hard copies to follow by post.


What they have actually e-mailed is a greatly adjusted writ, which has clearly been re-written in response to my original defences,

along with a copy of a personal loan agreement I had signed 15 years ago for an advance of £2000 with approx £500 in personal protection.


The documents they have sent me have clearly been submitted to the court today as well,

which will keep them within the time limit for submitting adjustments,


but I did not receive the e-mail until late afternoon,

so I was already too late to respond by the time I received it.


I can't believe I was stupid enough to give them my e-mail address,

and I can't believe they can get away with pulling a prank like this.


Surely there must be something I can do to be able to respond to their significantly re-worded writ.


I would be grateful for any advice that anyone can offer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

usual tricks by shoe's

is yule involved too?


phone the court and tell them.


scan up the agreement please



please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Any adjustment of claim has to lodge by

Incidental Application under Summery cause rules 13.1 (see below)


13.1. (1) The sheriff may, on the incidental application of a party, allow amendment of the summons, form of response, counterclaim or answers to a counterclaim and adjust the note of disputed issues at any time before final judgment is pronounced on the merits.


(2) In an undefended action, the sheriff may order the amended summons to be re-served on the defender on such period of notice as he thinks fit.


(3) Paragraph (1) includes amendment for the following purposes:-


(a) increasing or reducing the sum claimed;


(b) seeking a different remedy from that originally sought;


© correcting or supplementing the designation of a party;


(d) enabling a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity; and


(e) sisting a party in substitution for, or in addition to, the original party.


(4) Where an amendment sists an additional or substitute defender to the action the sheriff shall order such service and regulate further procedure as he thinks fit.


Email the solicitors and point out this rules. If you had a solicitors acting for you, your solicitors would point this out and object this.


Sorry, i quoted you for SUMMERY CAUSE RULES. The ORDINARY CAUSE (under rules 18) should be the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to those who have responded.


I decided to stay up half the night to prepare my adjusted defences and I lodged them with the court by hand today,

so I made the 1st of April deadline for submittimg them.


The Pursuers' copy has been posted to Shoosmith by special delivery today,

which will mean they will receive it a day after the deadline,


although the postman has been and gone today and I have still not received the copy of the adjusted writ

which has supposedly been posted to me


(apart from the e-mail attachment Shoosmiths sent to me,

which has in part been rendered illegible by the photo-copying process).


I am now fully expecting Shoosmiths to lodge some motion or other in an attempt to win by default

due to their copy of the adjusted defences being delivered to them late or for some other similar reason,


but I've dealt with this situation before in similar types of cases, and I am confident that I could successfully oppose such a motion

if that's the route the Pursuers decide to go down.


I occasionally act as a nominated lay representative in debt related cases like this

- it just happens to be me as defender myself this time,

but the work involved is still the same.


Barring any motions being lodged, the options hearing is due to be held on 15 April.


I will keep the forum posted on how things progress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...


I will keep the forum posted on how things progress.


How did things go ?

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a very good outcome in the end.


At the options hearing, Shoosmiths had appointed a local solicitor to speak on their behalf,

and he asked for the case to be continued for a further 6 weeks to allow Shoosmiths "clients" (i.e Arrow Global)

more time to find the relevant documentation to back up their claim.


I opposed that motion on the grounds that the pursuer had already had several months to find any relevant documentation,

which the sheriff agreed with and therefore set a date for a proof hearing.


A few days before the date set for the proof hearing, Shoosmiths made contact with me

and told me their client had decided not to proceed with the case.


They asked if I would agree to the case being dismissed with no costs due to or by either side,

but I told them I would only agree to do that if Shoosmiths asked the court for a decree of absolvitor,

which they eventually had to agree to as otherwise the proof hearing would have gone ahead

and I would have won as they clearly had not one shred of evidence to back up their claim.


A decree of absolvitor can be granted in these situations, whereby the sheriff can treat the case as if the defender has won

when no proof hearing has actually taken place, because the Pursuer has dropped the case without presenting any evidence.

It means that I cannot be taken back to court in respect of the alleged debt Arrow Global were pursuing.


Thanks to all who have shown an interest in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a good move on your part to ensure that they cannot issue another claim further down the line.


You would have thought they would have learned their lesson by now by ensuring that all the documents they intend to rely on are already in their possession prior to issuing claims.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read


1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey great news


that's a bloody nose in for them too in Scotland now

on these speculative claims


it would really really help CAG if you could stick around..

or atleast look in on the Scottish forum once in a while.



you know what you are doing...we dont




please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news.


Also great to hear that "speculative claims" are something that does happen. As have received a summary cause summons myself on old debt from a DCA and just wondering why if there was a claim the original loan provider would not pursue themselves if it was enforceable!


This is a great site and so glad i have discovered it as it gives great heart, that you can take these guys on and use the system to beat them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...