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

Indirect Discrimination or just plain drunk?

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2745 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

If a pub bars a person for making calls to the police and threatening suicide - would it be indirect discrimination to ban them (disability/mental health is a protective characteristic)


Or could pub argue the fella was drunk and they were banning him for that.


Would a ban for such an incident be disproprtionate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ yep. I agree, you can't ban who you like....on the mental health issues or odd behaviour eg tourettes what might seem anti-social could be quirk someone can't control. Or with kids bad behaviour excused if it's ASD or whatever.


Yep, people may have depression but surely that doesn't give green light to make a scene in a pub? Anyway doesn't booze make people depressed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No they can't nor have they been able to for a number of years since anti-dicrimination legistlation[/Quote]


Not true


The Licencee has absolute discretion over who is permitted on the premises and who is not. This overrides any interpretation of the Equality Act, providing that the reason for the exclusion is not the protected characteristic in itself


In this situation, the wish to exclude is not BECAUSE the individual has a mental illness, but due to the fact that the person with the illness causes trouble for the licenced premises which is beyond what any reasonable person might deem 'reasonable'


Barring somebody with a tic would be unreasonable, barring somebody whose illness caused them to be violent towards other customers would most likely be considered reasonable. Taking things to extremes, if a mentally ill customer habitually tried to harm others, or smashed the place up whenever he or she came into the pub, would it be 'discriminatory' to refuse entry? No, the law would not stand against the pub owner and the same would apply here.


Serving a customer when they are drunk is an offence in itself irrespective of mental state, and the customer can be asked to leave. Refusing entry where the customer makes nuisance phone calls from the premises despite requests to stop, and especially if concern was expressed that the suicide threats might be genuine would also be acceptable. In the case of the calls to police this may lead to a lack of response in a genuine situation where harm is being done, and regarding the suicide threats that is a matter for other agencies.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.






If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they can't nor have they been able to for a number of years since anti-dicrimination legistlation.


Im amazed, I would have thought that being a nuisance would be the only reason needed to bar anyone, many may accuse them of being discriminatory, but I would imagine have great difficulty proving it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...