Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Briefly: Bought kitchen (£20000) July 2023 Promised 1 week fitting - took 5 Only drinking water was from outside tap, couldn't cook All sorts of problems deliveries, wrong parts, quality of doors, drawers not working, worktops de-laminating, none yet resolved Crux of the matter Wickes want to replace all the marble worktops - sounds reasonable That means no kitchen again for how long? They want us to accept a type of marble we didn't want in the first place and still don't want now, and they are not saying that they will make good any damage that may be done in the process We don't want this work done, we want them to leave the kitchen as it is and give us some compensation My wife and I are both in our 70's, I am disabled and we are both on heart medication, we don't want the stress and disruption again The ombudsman says we must allow Wickes to try again Advice please, is there any point in going to the small claims court?  Thanks  
    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
    • apologies if I'm being dense, doesn't that open me up to the risk of a backdoor ccj? They still have my parents address for me. (I *may* come back to the UK someday!)
    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
    • I take it I should redact names, court numbers etc?
  • 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

Barry Beavis - This Morning


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3280 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

Go ahead

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 days worth of the case as a TV recording is already here

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html It still has a day to go the outcome/summing up is in a day or so...

 

 

There is already a post about this case here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?449253-Parking-eye-Ltd-vs.-Beavis

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

have followed some of this and the PE case looks contradictory. The judges have said that there is remedy for breach of contract and that is to sue for damages (existing law) but PE want an adjustment of the law to allow forfeiture (penalty) otherwise they cant make money at this site. The clause in contract saying your agree to pay £85 is not enforceable and they have basically admitted this point. However, the judges in the earlier levels allowed PE to argue that a penalty is allowable otherwise there would be mayhem, PE would lose money on their contract with the landlord etc. They are also arguing that their penalties somehow help with security of the properties they are based at (in a contractual sense).In other words PE may abandon their contracts with landlords (shame!!) if they cant apply penalties. The Lords have poo-pooed the idea that PE offer any security in any sense pointing out that PE dont pick up litter when they are not busy fining motorists so there is no transfer of property rights.

Now, looking at the contractual obligations of El Makressi then it looks athough if PE lose they will be rewriting their contracts with both LL's and also punters and there will be new signs showing that the permission to park will be on the basis of claiming an absolute right to the land they manage. This will raise new questions about business rates and VAT so it looks as though PE are trying to put in place a damage limitation rather than going in with the idea that they were on to a winner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...