Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've just seen your new post. A letter before action is the same as a letter of claim. You don't need a template. You simply need to inform the garage that the vehicle you bought has developed X defect, Y defect, Z defect. He has already been informed of them and given an opportunity to repair and he has either refused the chance to repair or else he has attempted the repair and it has failed – whichever is the case and so under the consumer rights act you are asserting your right to reject the vehicle and you want him to make the appropriate arrangements to collect the vehicle and to refund you the purchase price – plus any associated losses – and if he does not do so within 14 days then you will sue him in the County Court and without any further notice. Don't make this threat if you're not serious about going ahead with it. On day 15 issue the papers. In the intervening 14 days register with money claim and start preparing your particulars of claim. You can post them here if you want us to check them. Whatever you do, on day 15 you send them the good news
    • Well done Shelley. I'll amend your thread title.   HB
    • I'm afraid that your story is rather overlong. It would have been easier to understand it all if there had been less of a narrative and more of a bullet pointed chronology of facts. Although you informed the dealer within 30 days that there was a problem, the Consumer Rights Act requires that there be a clear and unambiguous assertion of your short-term right to reject the vehicle. It doesn't appear to me that you have done this. This isn't a problem at all because you are still well within six months. I understand that you have given them an opportunity to repair and that you have now rejected the vehicle. This is enough to trigger your rights under the Consumer Rights Act as long as the defects which you are complaining about are sufficient to render the vehicle as less than satisfactory quality. As I say, I haven't read through the detail of your story and I certainly haven't looked at all of the PDFs that you have apparently uploaded but I get the impression that you have been quite meticulous in keeping records. I've looked at the Google reviews of Elite and I have to say it doesn't bode very well. https://www.google.com/search?q=Elite+Preowned+Vehicles&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB822GB822&oq=Elite+Preowned+Vehicles&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2j69i60j69i61l2.575j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#lrd=0x47d8aa4f43f644d7:0x8e93221101489523,1,,,  There is no trust pilot page for them as yet. Maybe you would like to attend to that. You say that the dealer is fond of using social media so that kind of thing is important. Site team member@dx100uk has already suggested that you issue a letter of claim and that certainly seems the way to go although if you are driven to actually mount a claim and presented in court that I hope you won't mind me suggesting that you need to stop being a little bit more economical about the way you present your case. Just in case there is any debate over the defects which have been discovered and their significance then if you haven't done this already, you should make sure that you have got assessments and even quotations for the work from independent garages.
    • Hello dx100uk. Thanks for your attention and help with this. You had an even later night than me! I clicked on the 'letter before action' link which you kindly gave me. This took me to BankFodder's post 'Small Claims actions in the County Court FAQ - work in progress' which I have read through and also the 'Pre-Action Protocol' and 'Letter of Claim' links. I couldn't find reference to a Letter Before Action or is this the same as a Letter Of Claim? Also, my rejection letter already mentioned a 14 day period (taking us to 05/08/2019) for him to get back to me. Is it ok to send a Letter Before Action now? I only ask as I wouldn't want this to be viewed dimly by the court if it goes that far. I do understand that I need to take action as soon as possible so these are just a few clarification questions. I shall google for some Letter Before Action Templates and put something together. Thanks again.
  • Our picks

NewsBot

The great e-cigarette war

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1197 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

the DM reports that

'Juliane Kokott, advocate general to the European Court of Justice, warned that e-cigarettes may act as a ‘gateway’ for teenagers to go on to smoke tobacco. Dr Kokott, the EU’s most senior legal officer, said regulation is needed because of ‘possible risks to human health’......'

and that 1 in 4 ecigs wld be banned under the new EU regs as being too strong...ruling due in march

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3372351/One-four-e-cigs-banned-Britain-year-branded-strong-European-Court-ruling.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the rags reporting on this article;

 

'Adding to growing evidence on the possible health risks of electronic cigarettes, a lab team at the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System tested two products and found they damaged cells in ways that could lead to cancer. The damage occurred even with nicotine-free versions of the products. "Our study strongly suggests that electronic cigarettes are not as safe as their marketing makes them appear to the public," wrote the researchers, who published their findings in the journal Oral Oncology...."Based on the evidence to date," she says, "I believe they are no better than smoking regular cigarettes."'

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20151229/E-cigarettes-damage-cells-in-ways-that-could-lead-to-cancer.aspx


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Based on the evidence to date," she says, "I believe they are no better than smoking regular cigarettes."'

 

Then why are they providing them on the NHS ??


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

 

 

BCOBS

 

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.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then why are they providing them on the NHS ??

:noidea:

i suppose its seen as being less harmful according to NHS etc research, and if it stops someone from smoking tobacco....

that med article says they are yet to study it comparatively ie their test result is re being equivalent to someone chain smoking.

it seems though that they are being seen as being of 'some' harm. q is what


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the report itself

E-cigarette, cigarette, and nicotine treatments

E-cigarette vapor was pulled through media using negative pressure, and the resulting extract was filter-sterilized with a 0.2 μm pore-size filter before treating cell cultures. The cigarette-treated media was made similarly using Marlboro Red filter cigarettes, which were determined by the Federal Trade Commission in a 2000 report to contain 1.2 mg of nicotine per cigarette. […]

Treatment media was replaced every three days with 1% e-cigarette extract.
Because of the high toxicity of cigarette smoke extract, cigarette-treated samples of each cell line could only be treated for 24 h
.
(emphasis added)

That should have rung an alarm bell as it is completely inconsistent with Wang-Rodriquez’ claim of equivalent risk and the Telegraph’s headline. The methodology section is very poorly written, but it appears to imply that they measured e-cigarette vapour over days and weeks, but cigarette extract over just 24 hours. The results use an unusual formulation in which the cigarette measures do not really appear as part of the results, but are just offered “for comparison”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why are they providing them on the NHS ??

Probably because they are not relying on a combination of pseudo science and lazy journalism for their decision making process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'E-cigarettes have been granted a licence by Britain’s medicines regulator for the first time, opening the door for them to be prescribed on the NHS. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has awarded a licence to British American Tobacco for its e-Voke device that will allow it to be marketed as a smoking cessation aid.....' 'A spokeswoman for British American Tobacco said...“E-Voke uses cartridges containing pharmaceutical grade nicotine.“We are now reviewing the commercialisation of e-Voke."........'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/12079130/E-cigarettes-win-first-approval-as-a-medicine-opening-way-for-prescription-by-the-NHS.html


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Researchers criticise study claiming e-cigarettes may lower chances of successfully quitting....'

 

........A new US study claims that smokers who don’t use e-cigarettes are more likely to quit smoking than those who use them. But experts have been quick to point out the numerous limitations of the study, with the conclusions being at best preliminary or at worst “grossly misleading” according to Professor Peter Hajek, Director of the Tobacco Dependence Research Unit, Queen Mary University of London.....'

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/news-report/2016-01-15-researchers-criticise-study-claiming-e-cigarettes-may-lower-chances-of-successfully-quitting


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Advertisements for … flavoured e-cigarettes could encourage children to try vaping," ITV News reports after a study found children shown these ads were more likely to express an interest in trying flavoured e-cigs...............They found adverts for flavoured e-cigarettes were more appealing compared with those for non-flavoured e-cigarettes – and children said they'd be more interested in going out and buying them. But whether they would actually do this is another matter. This research has only examined attitudes, not behaviour. The good news is the research found adverts for flavoured or non-flavoured e-cigarettes made no difference to the children's opinion of whether or not they'd be more likely to try smoking real cigarettes, regardless of whether or not the researchers showed them adverts......'

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/01January/Pages/Are-ads-for-candy-flavoured-ecigs-tempting-teens-to-vape.aspx

 

note that the nhs goes further and details the ins/outs of the reported research :)


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another mednews article report.

'Electronic cigarettes expose the lungs to toxicity, reduce the effectiveness of the immune system and encourage bacterial activity, potentially making superbugs more deadly, according to (mice) research published in the Journal of Molecular Medicine....'

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/305829.php


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ecigs as stop smoking aid...?

'Only one-in-six smokers has converted to the e-cigarette, new data reveals today...'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/e-cig-revolution-only-1-in-6-smokers-has-converted-a6881996.html

 

further reports; e cigs use in pregnancy 'as dangerous'; and e cigs 'shut down/compromise' the immune system..

lots of recent media reports on that.

 

the 'e cig war' seems to be continuing...which side are you on? :)


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah - the guy was carrying loose batteries in his pocket, they weren't even in any device but it wouldn't have been a story if they weren't somehow linked to e-cigs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the DM saying that the nhs might be paying over the odds for prescribing an ecig (nothing new there re paying over the odds :))

'Firms making e-cigarettes could be ripping off customers – with research showing refill cartridges are being sold for around £1.50, despite costing only about 4p to produce. This means customers are paying roughly 37 times the cost price, when typically consumers pay around eight times the cost of manufacturing a product. Now campaigners have raised concerns that the mark-up means taxpayers could lose out if the NHS finalises a deal thought to be under discussion for British American Tobacco to supply prescription e-cigarettes....Jonathan Isaby, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘The NHS has a terrible record of negotiating a good price, despite its scale as a buyer...'

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3466652/E-cigarette-rip-cost-NHS-dear-Cartridges-costing-just-4p-make-sold-1-50-each.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'A ban on e-cigarettes in some public places is likely to win support from the assembly. The Welsh government is concerned e-cigarette use may normalise smoking...'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-35717379

 

plus, ecig prices set to 'soar' as to be reclassified by the EU as a tobacco product for tax purposes.

ibtimes


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Safer than what? Looking at who's behind it I suspect they mean safer than smoking cigarettes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Safer than what? .

ditto.

looks like is a ciggy (tobacco) but in an ecig format?


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From 20 May 2016 advertisements with the aim or direct or indirect effect

of promoting unlicensed, nicotine-containing electronic cigarettes and e-liquids

will be prohibited on television and radio in the United Kingdom.

 

The BCAP Code is being amended to reflect this prohibition and the ASA

will enforce compliance with it from that date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...