Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • @BankFodderHi, sorry I meant 31st May.
    • A knighthood has been announced for Alan Bates. He's been very modest about it, says it's for all the SPMs.
    • Your title suggest that you bought the car on the 31st of June 2024 which is at least two weeks away even if there is such a date
    • 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    
  • 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

UC JSA Is this correct? Deduction due to earnings (not paid)

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3277 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

Hopefully somebody will be able to help me. Background:: My 18 year old son was recently working for a company who made him sign a contract that the first 80 hours were training & that there were training fees of £400 if he was to leave in the first year or they terminated him. Anyhow, the dismissed him after 2 weeks saying they didn't feel he was right for the job (he had worked just short of 80 hours). His wage should have been £355, but he never received 1p due to the training fee deduction (£400).


He was previously on JSA (under the Universal Credit umbrella), he informed them when he began the job. He signed back on after losing the job. The company he worked for has sent him his P45 which shows the £355 earnings on it, this has now caused some problems::


DWP have just phoned my son to say they have deducted £150 from his UC/JSA due to his unreported earnings of £355 (which he actually never got as they were held back for training fees). He explained the situation to them on the phone, but they are going from his P45. When he signed back on he explained them he wouldn't physically see any wage due to the training fee.


Dates may help: Started the job: 4th May..... Dismissed 18th May.... Signed back on 19th May


He received only £95 today due to the deduction is this correct? or should he in fact not have this deduction made due to not physically receiving a penny. (he is paid UC/JSA monthly)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there.


I think you should start a separate thread in the employment forum about this deduction. They don't advise on benefits over on that one, but the guys here will hopefully answer the benefits part of your query.



Illegitimi non carborundum




Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks honeybee13 ... my main query is about the JSA (UC) part x


Fair enough, but from reading threads on the employment forum, I think it could be worth challenging the deduction and asking about the discrepancy on the P45.



Illegitimi non carborundum




Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...