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

Pending legal action for failing to deliver on a contractual guarantee


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2570 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

Hi and welcome to CAG, I think you are in the correct place.

 

In a large corporate, it is not the marketing department's decision to start litigation. They'd have to go through management and involve group legal. I doubt the company would bother suing you to be honest, especially if you are an individual with limited assets and given that we are talking about a pretty small sum of money in the context of a large company.

 

What exactly does the contract say? If the contract says you have to refund the money if you don't secure 25 people, that's what you have to do. But if the contract simply says you guarantee 25 attendees, then you are in breach of contract, and the legal remedy is damages for that breach of contract, but the company has to prove what those damages are. I'm not sure how a company could legally prove loss for not having enough people at a networking event.

 

Personally, I would just be up front about it - explain what you have done and why it hasn't worked. If you can salvage the situation, you should probably try to do that. If the situation is not salvageable, then I think you just have to face the music ASAP - so that the person instructing you can mitigate their losses and minimise the amount of internal embarrassment.

 

If you do get asked for repayment then you can make the point that the money has been spent and you are not in a position to repay it. I doubt the suggestion of monthly payments is going to be attractive - this company doesn't sound like a bank and won't have the capacity to monitor monthly payments unless I guess they sell it to a debt collector. This money will be coming out of the department's budget for the year - anything you pay back in the next financial year is not likely to be credited back to their budget so won't matter to the people you are dealing with day-to-day.

  • Confused 1

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see - the wording is quite clear that the client is entitled to a pro-rata refund if you don't get 25 attendees.

 

There are two ways to calculate this - either (1) you deduct expenses from the £23.5k and then divide pro-rata, or (2) you divide the £23.5k pro-rata and then deduct expenses.

 

The wording suggests to me that option (2) applies, although nothing to stop you putting forward a calculation based on option (1) and let them raise it if they disagree.

 

Mind you, if you can only get 10 attendees, they may not want to go ahead with the event so it is worth having an open conversation with them.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, I have some thinking to do.

 

Another question. Would I be able to include the funds I drew for my living expenses and outgoings within "expenses"?

 

I would have thought the reference to "expenses" would only cover outgoings relating to organising the event. I doubt it would cover personal expenses and living costs.

 

When you say 'withdrew', what does that mean? Were you contracting through a limited company?

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...