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

Local Authorities spend £200 million forcing their staff to sign "compromise agreements" !

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2998 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Well now you know why your Local Library or Swimming pool is closing down !


No money for social care - because staff are being paid to prevent whistleblowing or criticism of bosses.



Local Authorities are apparently requiring staff who are taking early retirement/redundancy or leaving after a dispute, to sign a gagging order (compromise agreement). It would appear that the person leaving receives more money if they do this.




Councils have spent more than £200 million on settlements with staff - most of which include "gagging orders", an investigation has found.


Over the past five years, 17,571 "compromise agreements" or settlements were signed by council workers.


Most include a strict clause preventing them from criticising their bosses, BBC Radio 5 live Investigates has found.


Staff received a total of £226.7 million from the settlements, a figure which includes both enhancements and statutory payments.


Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee, told the BBC it is unacceptable if the agreements are being used to prevent whistleblowing.






Several teachers forced out of schools at the centre of the Birmingham Trojan Horse scandal were offered settlement agreements.


The teachers raised concerns about governing bodies that were trying to introduce strict Islamic principles.


A Government report into the scandal found there was a perception among staff that the city council preferred to move teachers on rather than confront misbehaving governing bodies.






Link to post
Share on other sites




Meg Hillier, the chairwoman of the Commons public accounts committee, told the BBC it was unacceptable if the agreements were being used to prevent whistleblowing.


She said: “It is ridiculous to make people who are getting redundancy to sign these. It just goes to show it is being used rather indiscriminately.


“There can be no excuse for silencing people who have got a legitimate concern about some serious issues – be it around child protection or basic service delivery that’s not going well. If an employee is being told they can’t talk about something and is bought off, that’s not an acceptable use of these settlement agreements.”





Councils blow £200 MILLION in taxpayers’ cash on staff ‘gagging’ settlements


SHAMELESS councils have splurged more than £200 million in taxpayers’ cash on settlements with staff - most of which include "gagging orders".





One ex worker refused to sign.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Wirral Council have balanced their books for these gagging orders by removing free swimming. Presumably this will also be one of the LAs who are bemoaning the fact that youngsters are not exercising enough and are obese !!




Wirral Council used the agreements with more than 1,000 people who took voluntary redundancy or early retirement between 2010 and 2012, although the council said they are rarely used now.


The figures come after concerns were raised that authorities are using gagging clauses to stifle criticism.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3520996/Councils-spent-200m-staff-settlements-gagging-orders.html#ixzz44mMFmk9V





"My daughter and her friends were looking forward to going swimming during their time off and this will be a massive blow.


“We will now have to pay around £15 a month or nearly £5 every time she wishes to go.



Mr Charles added: "Our council tax has gone up, they have done nothing to reduce the number of councillors and yet they can still squander OUR money on consultants, gagging clauses and pay-offs.


"I have said this time and time again, it is about time the council is brought to heel and once and for all get this shower of inept fools out of office and where they belong - on the dole queue."





Link to post
Share on other sites

What is scary is that some of the more recent scandals of child abuse might have been uncovered sooner had this type of gagging had not been going on.



A government report into the so-called Trojan Horse scandal in Birmingham in 2013 found that head teachers who were raising concerns about governing bodies that were trying to introduce strict Islamic principles in some schools were offered settlement agreements so they could be removed from their jobs.


One head teacher told the BBC: "The inquiry exposed that Birmingham [Council] let me and my colleagues down. All I can conclude from that is that I actually became the problem because I was complaining too often and they could deal with me rather than actually dealing with the whole issue and exercising their duty of care to me."


Birmingham City Council said it had reviewed the agreements and "they were the right thing to do at the time".




Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard about this on Radio 5 live this morning. Cardiff council have issued hundreds of gagging clauses to staff leaving, as part of standard practice. It means that ex staff cannot tell anyone interested about issues e.g safety, unless there is something illegal happening.

We could do with some help from you.



 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group


If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see that clause being in plain language which would be an admittance on paper that they are being paid extra to be quiet. I would sign, take the extra and still go blabbing to the papers or anyone else who wanted to know. What would the do, send you to prison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...