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

Challenging 3rd Party Mobile Charges


db6279
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3044 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

I have a contract with EE. I was browsing facebook and clicked on a link. I immediately received a text telling me I was subscribed to a service costing £4.50 per week. Needless to say, I do not feel I consented to this. Certainly not enough to form a contract by simply clicking a link. I spoke to customer services at EE who assured me the charge was cancelled. However, they have let this company charge me for 6 weeks now and have now refused to refund the charges saying that it has nothing to do with them.

 

EE have simply referred me to PhonePayPlus etc. I think we all know that the company in question are basically a [problem] company so I have no faith in them to refund me or cancel my subscription. My argument would be that my contract is with EE and so any charges I am charged by them should be justified by them. Im not saying they should be in possession of evidence to pass on, but there should certainly be more than an 'anyone can ask for money and we will just remove it from you and give it to them' approach.

 

That said, this problem has been around for a while and I am not the first to suffer from it so there must be some reason why nobody has challenged a phone company via the courts. On what basis can they simply pass on this cost and deny contractual responsibility for it?

 

I have a law degree and am considering pursuing this via the SCC. What legislation are they relying on that allows them to pass on third party charges unhindered? Surely any such clause in the contract allowing this would be an unfair clause as I am a consumer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try ringing 03333217042 On Monday... I believe this is the number for them. You can unsubscribe. As for the money already lost, complain up the chain to EE Management.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...