Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Part 85 the Civil Procedure Rules ..... Discussion

Whitely
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2553 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

Whitely

Whitely

Posted
  • Author
Posted
DB is perfectly correct..the case I mentioned was heard in Watford, the claimant was in Court as was his solicitor. The matter I speak of was only a small part of the evidence given to the Court from a whole raft of ridiculous claims made against a LA and Enforcement company...all thrown out I believe.

 

A few more details would be helpful. Seeing as you already know the court, the claimant and their representative, this shouldn't be difficult. What are the details of the case and the arguments used?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Whitely

Whitely

Posted
  • Author
Posted
As I understand it.....most ( not all) enforcement sgents photograph the car when clamps are in place.

 

And they could also then remove them. The police, it seems, are far too quick to fully believe anything a bailiff tells them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
wonkeydonkey

wonkeydonkey

Posted
Posted
A few more details would be helpful. Seeing as you already know the court, the claimant and their representative, this shouldn't be difficult. What are the details of the case and the arguments used?

 

This would be best discussed when the Jugment is released and all the facts are there to see. (as I am sure it will be given it's importance)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whitely

Whitely

Posted
  • Author
Posted
This would be best discussed when the Jugment is released and all the facts are there to see. (as I am sure it will be given it's importance)

 

Judging by your previous posts I assumed you already had the details of the judgement as you were commenting on the outcomes. It now seems that the judgement has yet to be released.

 

However as I said earlier, Bailiff Advice assured us on Sunday that she would be posting the details 'in the next couple of days'. So that would indicate the judgement has been released. Things appear very contradictory at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
wonkeydonkey

wonkeydonkey

Posted
Posted
And they could also then remove them. The police, it seems, are far too quick to fully believe anything a bailiff tells them.

 

There are many'what if' scenarios.I for one have no intention of entering into circles of discusion on them all I prefer to facts to opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
wonkeydonkey

wonkeydonkey

Posted
Posted
Judging by your previous posts I assumed you already had the details of the judgement as you were commenting on the outcomes. It now seems that the judgement has yet to be released.

 

However as I said earlier, Bailiff Advice assured us on Sunday that she would be posting the details 'in the next couple of days'. So that would indicate the judgement has been released. Things appear very contradictory at the moment.

 

Perhapse if I were to replace the word 'released' with 'published' it will make for better reading. Sorry if I confused you, it was unintentional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peterbard

Peterbard

Posted
Posted
DB is perfectly correct..the case I mentioned was heard in Watford, the claimant was in Court as was his solicitor. The matter I speak of was only a small part of the evidence given to the Court from a whole raft of ridiculous claims made against a LA and Enforcement company...all thrown out I believe.

 

I wonder who has been misinforming this poster ?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peterbard

Peterbard

Posted
Posted

Anyway no matter. The truth will out as they say.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whitely

Whitely

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Perhapse if I were to replace the word 'released' with 'published' it will make for better reading. Sorry if I confused you, it was unintentional.

 

County Court cases are rarely 'published'. The only conclusion is that someone who was present on the day has released or fed the details to Bailiff Advice (seeing as she was to be posting the details), who has then passed this info on to yourself.

 

I doubt whether Bailiff Advice or yourself were present, so it can only be from the following list - the judge, the LA, the EA company, the EA's solicitor, the claimant or the claimant's solicitor.

 

I doubt that the judge or the LA would do so, nor would any of the 'losing' parties, so that leaves just the EA company or their solicitor. Going by past evidence I would hazard a guess at the EA's solicitor. I find that a little troubling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peterbard

Peterbard

Posted
Posted
Sorry my mistake - he was given leave to appeal on that date.

 

Must be the wrong one. This one certainly did not get leave to appeal, not at ll.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whitely

Whitely

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Sorry my mistake - he was given leave to appeal on that date.

 

Apologies again, the case I am referring to was on the May 10th. Leave was also given to appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peterbard

Peterbard

Posted
Posted
County Court cases are rarely 'published'. The only conclusion is that someone who was present on the day has released or fed the details to Bailiff Advice (seeing as she was to be posting the details), who has then passed this info on to yourself.

 

I doubt whether Bailiff Advice or yourself were present, so it can only be from the following list - the judge, the LA, the EA company, the EA's solicitor, the claimant or the claimant's solicitor.

 

I doubt that the judge or the LA would do so, nor would any of the 'losing' parties, so that leaves just the EA company or their solicitor. Going by past evidence I would hazard a guess at the EA's solicitor. I find that a little troubling.

 

I am afraid this is largely incorrect. Cases are of course recorded and anyone can order a transcript from the court office. I have done s on many occasions.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whitely

Whitely

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Or paid for transcript?

 

If you're suggesting that Bailiff Advice paid for a transcript then that would be impossible. The case only concluded just over a week ago and a transcript would not be available that quickly, what with the filing of the EX107, the court sending the recording, the written transcript being made then waiting for it's delivery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peterbard

Peterbard

Posted
Posted
I see. So you must have all the details then. Would you share them with us?

 

Don't be so petulant all comes to he who waits. ######:)

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whitely

Whitely

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I am afraid this is largely incorrect. Cases are of course recorded and anyone can order a transcript from the court office. I have done s on many occasions.

 

I'm sorry Dodgeball but you are mistaken. Of course recordings are made and transcripts can be ordered, often at a considerable cost. However, CC rulings are rarely publically 'published' by the courts for everyone to read.

 

Could you elaborate on how my post is largely incorrect? All things considered, I cannot see how the details of this case have been released other than how I explained. If you have an alternative suggestion I'm all ears.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whitely

Whitely

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Don't be so petulant all comes to he who waits. ######:)

 

Not sure how I'm being petulant. It seems that between yourself, Bailiff Advice and wonkeydonkey, you claim to be privvy to the details of this case, but then claim you don't have the details as the transcript has yet to be released. As I said, on Sunday Bailiff Advice assured us they would be posting the case details in the next day or two yet nothing has surfaced. However it seems that you three are freely sharing the details amongst yourselves leaving not just me, but everyone else on these boards in the dark. I find it very strange.

Link to post
Share on other sites
wonkeydonkey

wonkeydonkey

Posted
Posted
If you're suggesting that Bailiff Advice paid for a transcript then that would be impossible. The case only concluded just over a week ago and a transcript would not be available that quickly, what with the filing of the EX107, the court sending the recording, the written transcript being made then waiting for it's delivery.

 

The case I was referring to was heard in February!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whitely

Whitely

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Who pays for them I don't know but many transcripts are used for legal training, especially those that cover matters appertaining to current lectures.

 

I doubt that would be the case in this instance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...