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

Guido T v Lloyds TSB ***DEFENCE STRUCK OUT - WON****


GuidoT
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6128 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

Gary, penalties do not come up that much, it is usually quite clear if something is a penalty.

 

I have stumbled across the Dunlop v New Garage case before but we do not argue much about the penalty point as it is reasonably settled law. Probably why the banks are not prepared to test their cloaked charges in court.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I was doing a search for other solicitors and thought I would see what kind of standing SCM have. I now see that SCM are part of Lloyds TSB Asset Finance owned by Lloyds TSB.

 

Effectively they are Lloyds' in-house lawyers - that probably comes as no surprise to most.

 

Therefore, if you speak to them once the litigation is in progress, they are (unsurprisingly) about as helpful as the staff at Lloyds, as they are indeed Lloyds staff.

 

This just reinforces my view about speaking to them, there is little point, indeed speaking to them may dissuade you from continuing if they are difficult or rude on the phone.

 

I do appreciate that sometimes, claimant's obtain settlements quicker if they speak to them, but I suspect that the settlement would have come anyways.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, they're pretty much an extension of LTSB's collections department. They aren't even listed in directory enquiries, plus Breadline did a land registry search a while ago and Lloyds own their site!

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guido T,

 

You're thread is getting quite busy now, glad to help you on the way to page three (no sniggering please!) :p

 

I think you're wise to proceed with the new AQ directions prior to any outcome on the kazzaw thread. I'm in a similar boat with my AQ due on the 17th, so although I'm tempted to draw the courts attention to the Lincoln order, without any outcome, I'd feel a bit uncomfortable....

 

As has been mentioned previously, the banks are not muppets and know what they are doing, it will only cause them to adopt a different approach with these claims... :|

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks agonynine, do you have a thread setting down the progress of your claim, I could not find it?

 

We are only two days apart, the last day for returning my AQ is the 15 January 2007 (I returned it early) - it would be good to follow your progress.

 

After reading your post again, I got it and sniggered, i.e. the page 3 part.

  • Haha 1

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agonynine - nice work, opened your new Natwest thread with a long one.

 

You will see I just opened in Natwest today too, but on that one I have some way to go.

 

Claim started in Watford (I know not London but near enough) and still remains there, for a court they have been very efficient.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Every claim so far in which the draft directions have been proposed they have been ordered, so yes, I think you could call that success! See this page of the new strategy thread - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/53570-new-strategy-allocation-questionaires-8.html#post481560

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Buzzbaa, no response yet, but you should still use the New Strategy in any event. I do not expect further direction for another month or so.

 

You may want to hold on responding until we see the outcome of Kazzaw, see my posts above in particular 17.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received offer in the last few days for all the 6 years charges, statutory interest and court fees. However, no mention of deducting the previous goodwill payment.

 

For most people this would be all of their claim, however I am claiming back 10 or so years and contractual interest.

 

I think this is a change in strategy for Lloyds. Now making proper offers before even the AQ have been returned.

 

I will post the full letter here later.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi GuidoT

 

What was the closing date for your AQ?

 

So do you think they will pay your claim for the 10 yrs?

 

Sent my AQ off today, along with the Strategy Attatched, and copy to Lloyds Monkey's. Closing date 27/1/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Buzzbaa - AQ latest date was I think 17 January 2007.

 

I am thinking if the judge makes the order as the new strategy and SCM do not produce the evidence (which is likely) their defence will be struck out and then by default I will obtain the 10 years going back.

 

I will just wait and see.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just subscribin :)

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are most welcome Photoman. I was to scared to get involved with your thread, after I saw BF's posts. I did not think that you deserved such a vehement lambasting.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guido Hi, Thanks for that. I had a few problems with my threading and knowing you are quite techie I thought of you, but it transpires I am not alone.

 

I was looking for Photoman's thread to see what his lambasting (which you mentioned) was about, but I can't find it.

 

Paula

Link to post
Share on other sites

...........as I'm now subscribed I can hear the whispers behind my back ;)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/54548-could-biggest-claim-site.html

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to be more careful, do not tell me off, you know what happens if you misbehave here (your post 104)!

 

I posted the link on Upton11's thread for ease.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guido, please forgive the highjack. Photoman there was no gossip - merely the need to see what Guido was talking about. More nosey parker than wilful gossip!

 

PS Guido, every time I come on line, you are here or have recently been - honey, like me, you need to get out more!

 

Paula

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paula - highjack all you like, nothing happens with my claim anyway.

 

I know I need to get out more - Friday night too; how sad. At work I am always on line and when I get bored I do a few posts. I usually work in the evening a little too and respond to a few posts then too.

 

Anyway I am having a day off tomorrow - I am allowed out - all day.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...