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
      • 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

another compliance officer visit -** RESOLVED **


hollowman
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2966 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

Most compliance interviews are just to check on the accuracy of the claim processing depts - it's how they get their internal error rates. If something was missed before then your claim may have been referred to check there wasn't anything else missed.

 

If it was about fraud it would be an interview under caution - a compliance interview is a totally different and benign thing.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that worrying about it is not the way to go, and that if your claim(s) are legitimate then you should have nothing to fear...however, I can attest from personal experience, the reason they claim they undertake these interviews is not the real reason. The only reason I believe they visit people in their homes is to investigate personal circumstance because they have doubts (referred by somebody specifically or not) about your status in one way or another. So, be prepared to be questioned about those doubts.

 

Approach them like they approach you, with a level of suspicion.

 

Be polite, be courteous, but do not be fooled into thinking they're coming round for a cup of tea and a chat. They are there to do a job, what that job is, is up for debate!

It is your job to protect your social security....but, yes...do relax too :)

 

There are now two parts to the compliance section, one checks on claims where there has been an allegation made, but there is no evidence for fraud - they have to do a check anyway. If they suspected fraud it would be a taped interview under caution. The second part is where random claims are selected by computer in order to check on accuracy rates of processors, in addition claims where there has already been an error may be rechecked to be sure that there was nothing else missed.

 

Please don't try to worry and scare someone who is in poor health with anxiety issues!

  • Haha 1

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...