Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • 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 
        • 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

furzle V RBOS


furzle
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6254 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

Well - no more news from the banks. Not a sausage. All quiet - they must be keeping busy with all the letters. Time for the LBA...

 

Sending it recorded tomorrow.

7-11-06 Requested statements from bank

11-11-06 Statements received

3-2-07 Finally send letter demanding repayment of £1,993.81

8-2-07 received first bog off letter - 'sorry to hear you are dissatisfied - passing you to customer services...'

21-3-07 letter ofering full refund of charges (£1037) less the contractual interest. As have NOT filed to court yet, am accepting payment of charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Sent the LBA and had date in diary to get ready for court. I had all the papers ready and so on. Due to family illness and then a quick well deserved holiday, I was running late on filing and had decided to sort it all out in school holidays.

 

Got home today to find a letter on the mat offering £1037.

This is the full amount of charges but not the contractual interest.

Since they have offered full refund, any court case now would (I assume) hinge on proving my right to contractual interest which to my mind seems a whole other kettle of fish as a standalone case now the charges themselves have been refunded. (nb. for anyone confused by this - I haven't yet filed a claim).

 

So I am going to accept the offer of all the charges back.

 

And I must say, I am very pleased indeed - thanks guys you have made it a very painless process. I have donated contents of my paypal account today. My share of the holiday paid for and enough to re-tile the bathroom!

7-11-06 Requested statements from bank

11-11-06 Statements received

3-2-07 Finally send letter demanding repayment of £1,993.81

8-2-07 received first bog off letter - 'sorry to hear you are dissatisfied - passing you to customer services...'

21-3-07 letter ofering full refund of charges (£1037) less the contractual interest. As have NOT filed to court yet, am accepting payment of charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent news, and very well done.

 

I would also agree with your assessment of the contractual interest position. I have always been of the opinion that a District Judge would not be happy where a claim was continued purely for the contractual interest. Especially when the whole basis of the claim is that WE have committed a breach of contract.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...