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

millymollymoo V goldfish


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4771 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

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

tamadus vbmenu_register("postmenu_", true);

Platinum Account Customer

Site Helper

 

 

 

 

 

icon1.gif Re: Im a bit worried!! millymollymoo v goldfish

Ok young lady stop worrying.

 

First your claim will be in small claims track so costs are limited.

 

The without prejudice bit means they can only produce the letter where a claim for costs is concerned.

 

they have untill the 19th to acknowledge the claim so again no wrry needed yet.

 

You have made a valid claim so why should you settle for less ? They owe you say 1000 and you want it, no court can expect you to settle for 200.

 

so sleep easy :-)

 

Dave

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by millymollymoo

Hi guys

I am a bit worried at the moment concerning the fact that I rejected goldfish's offers in full and I will tell you why. They were deemed served 5th feb and have had no acknowledgment as of today. the worry is that I received these offers marked 'WITHOUT PREJUDICE As SAVE TO COSTS ' and I have looked that up. the save to costs bit is added so that THEY CAN show the offers in court they have given in the view of showing i have been unreasonable and so that the judge if proved right will award their costs

 

The thing is each offer had unfair conditions attached , {I did list these conditions to the last rejection letter sent saying I did not agree to them} . I thought that if it came to it to show I was not being unreasonable to the judge I was going to show one of the conditions concerning confidentiallity. It basically said that this offer and any other other or corresponence between Gold fish and me. If I breached the confidentiality then they would reclaim all the money given to me or set off. So I thought that i could tell the judge that as I had discussed my offers and asked for advice from the consumer action group that I felt that I could not accept the offers not even in part for fear of them reclaiming their money as they had stated in their confidentiality clause and that is why I rejected in full.

 

 

What do you think I should do ? Should I send Goldfish another letter staing the actual reason why i rejected their offer as I did not explain in the last on just said I did not agree.

 

Milly

CAPITAL ONE (O/H!): Won £1864.63 including contractual :D

GE MONEY: WON £266.00

Link to post
Share on other sites

MORE EXCELLENT ADVICE FROM TAMADUS P.M'D

 

Do you really expect them to appear in court ?

 

Also they charged you at contractual on the cgarges so all your doing is recovering your losses due to them and ending up in the same position you would have been in had the UNLAWFUL charges not been applied.

 

EVERY one of my claims has been at contractual rate and they all payed up .

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

FROM ME IN REPLY:

 

Do you think they will reoffer that amount with no conditions or settle the lot after defence ?

 

Milly x

 

FROM TAMADUS

I personally think they will settle after defence, no reason to think they will actually appear in court and upset their comfy little apple cart.

 

Now please stop worrying, if they do decide to break the rules then we can deal with it when it arises.

 

They have to defend unlawful charges and them adding interest to those charges at their contractual rate.

 

I am definitely claiming contractual when I put my claim against egg. I also plan to make their egg into a real humpty dumpty, all cracked and broken so the yolk will be on them.

 

Dave

CAPITAL ONE (O/H!): Won £1864.63 including contractual :D

GE MONEY: WON £266.00

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could anyone give me their opinions on whether this is agood argument for claiming contractual because of the borrowing I did?? This is concerning 1b in the thread below.

 

I have copied it from another thread.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by karnevil viewpost.gif

Directions Hearing Leeds

 

main part of interest

 

 

Thank you for providing this quote. It seems to me that contractual interest may be awarded if the claimant could prove that they ha to borrow at a higher rate.

 

Would this be suffice because this is what has happened in my case. When I paid off GFish I remortgaged my property and extended the term to 25 years from 18 years:sad: to pay off all debts. I directly paid GF from these cleared funds unbenownst that these charges were unfair then. The consequences are now that this will cost me dearly I have worked out £2080 over the term {unless I win the lottery or pay a lump sum} and dependant on interest rates of course.

 

This in relation to the CI I have charged them of £383 on my charges show surely that I have a good argument to the court in pursuing Contractual as I will still be at a massive loss. Also if I had known in February 06 what I know now I would NOT of paid them.

 

What do you think?

 

 

Milly X

CAPITAL ONE (O/H!): Won £1864.63 including contractual :D

GE MONEY: WON £266.00

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking cap time for that one, Milly.

 

Give me a nudge if I don't respond thoughtfully by Monday.

 

Westy

Westy

 

 

 

If you like my post, click the scales!!

 

Nov 1 2006 Preliminary letter

21 Feb 2007 - cheque arrived for charges+DEBIT interest +Statutory Interest! Hurray!

Read all about it: natwesttookmymoney - v- NatWest

DONATE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN TO KEEP THE SITE GOING.

 

What can you claim? Vampiress has a good idea:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/69877-what-can-you-claim.html

Anything I say is just a suggestion. I'm a bigmouth, not a lawyer!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fish have missed CCA deadline, by the way this deadline confirmed by them in aletter two weeks ago:D What a laugh!!!!!

 

 

Milly XX

 

P.S Thanks westy your advice given was excellent.

CAPITAL ONE (O/H!): Won £1864.63 including contractual :D

GE MONEY: WON £266.00

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not gonna remind them either as they cashed my cheque..naughty 'fish'.

 

Oh this is to the 'fish' to. Now don't be silly denying Contractual Interest cos I know you have paid it many times before you see;)

 

And I will add that to my AQ if it happens:D naughty!! and my further borrowing which shows you are getting off lightly/

 

Milly XXX

CAPITAL ONE (O/H!): Won £1864.63 including contractual :D

GE MONEY: WON £266.00

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is interesting from another thread posted by the cobbett slayer as this is what a judge said;:D .....................

 

'Lee - have a look in my thread because a judge made a very interesting observation at a hearing. He actually informed Cobbetts that they CANNOT make a without liability settlement and impose conditions upon it. '

 

SO THE JUDGE SEEMED TO SUGGEST FROM WHAT I SEE THAT THIS WOULD BE DEEMED UNREASONABLE. ;)

 

OOH i HOPE GOLDFISH ARE READING................

 

 

Milly X

CAPITAL ONE (O/H!): Won £1864.63 including contractual :D

GE MONEY: WON £266.00

Link to post
Share on other sites

************************

 

Please note that I am not able to continue posting information regarding this claim. I am happy for it to remain open in case it helps other users but will not be commenting on my own case.

 

It may be purely coincidental, but I am also very happy today. :grin:

 

************************

 

Milly X

CAPITAL ONE (O/H!): Won £1864.63 including contractual :D

GE MONEY: WON £266.00

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi milly

 

sorry to bother you but do you have the address for SAR to be sent out to Goldfish. Just starting the process.

 

Cheers

4th Dec 2006 : Posted S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) :o

18th Dec 2006 ; Received Statements :)

28th Dec 2006 ; Posted prelim letter (£3351.00) :rolleyes:

11th Jan 2007 : Reply, still investigating :x

16th Jan 2007 : Posted LBA (£3331.00/£556.00) :-(

31st Jan 2007 : Bank make offer of £3331.00 :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...