Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Not going to get in to a debate about privatisation, however, things are a lot better and SAFER, than they were in BR days I can assure you.   Regarding the topic here, complaints can be made to the local station management, but probably more sensible, would be to report it to the train operator who manages the station, so GWR in this case. They should have an online process, or a paper form at the ticket office.   Regarding these incidents, short of raising the platform, I don't see what can be done about it? All trains that serve Bristol Parkway have a Guard/Conductor/Train Manager I believe? That being the case, they shouldn't dispatch until clear to do so and will be on hand should any incidents occur? Due to the size of this station, I believe there will also be a fair amount of staff available, often performing dispatch duties?   If even the staff are advising you to complain, that begs the question as to whether they believe theirs an infrastructure problem which isn't being addressed, or is it because they want to make the company consider their resourcing levels at that station?
    • Ok, it's all mixed up as probably you haven't read the whole thread. In a nutshell: 1.company has breached gdpr 2. I want to punish them by getting a ccj 3. If i follow the pre action protocol, they will surely pay up to avoid the ccj. 4. Someone on many threads said not to settle even if they offer whatever you're asking for 5. SO I ASKED: would it be unreasonable to take them to court for a small amount and not give them the chance to settle? In other words, would the judge apply the law or kick me out of court?   P.S.: I am very familiar with pre action protocol,  done many many times.
    • Thank you for the above Andy. I’ve not stated to Shoosmiths that I have not signed the agreement, however at the time I didn’t really understand the agreement, it was just put in from of me, and told to sign. I did also sign a document saying it did not require legal representation.   What would you suggest as my next steps? 
  • Our picks

    • Future Comms is a Big Con. How to get out of it. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/417058-future-comms-is-a-big-con-how-to-get-out-of-it/
        • Like
      • 4 replies
    • Future Comms issues. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/416504-future-comms-issues/
      • 5 replies
    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
heliosuk

Legal discussion

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 402 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Personally I think you're on a hiding to nothing as from your posts you knowingly failed to disclose a material fact which has a proportionate effect on the deal agreed/contract. Theoretically they could come after you come after you on an attempt to defraud. The fact it was only at the last minute they uncovered this as it could be argued this was part of due diligence. Prior to this I would deem it to be an invitation to treat. I think you might be on a bit of a sticky wicket here so would suggest it might be best to let sleeping dogs lie??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry but this is mainly completely wrong.

 

 

Funny that as your subsequent statement on this post seems to support the fact. Further as you know until money exchanges hands the contract is open and the OP has openly and publicly admitted he knowingly did not inform the trader of a major material fact that would affect the contract price. I think if this went to court the trader would have a good chance of winning. As I point out the trader did indeed carry out due diligence prior to contract conclusion where the issue became apparent. However under these circumstances the trader should return the deposit and the OP should bare this in mind when trading in the car. At the end of the day is the OP prepared to go the distance with the challenge? It will cost more than the deposit lost, carries huge risk and could potentially cost the OP more than the deposit. I'd personally advise the OP walks away and put's it down to lessons learnt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
funny that as your subsequent statement on this post seems to support the fact. Further as you know until money exchanges hands the contract is open and the op has openly and publicly admitted he knowingly did not inform the trader of a major material fact that would affect the contract price. I think if this went to court the trader would have a good chance of winning. As i point out the trader did indeed carry out due diligence prior to contract conclusion where the issue became apparent. However under these circumstances the trader should return the deposit and the op should bare this in mind when trading in the car. At the end of the day is the op prepared to go the distance with the challenge? It will cost more than the deposit lost, carries huge risk and could potentially cost the op more than the deposit. I'd personally advise the op walks away and put's it down to lessons learnt

 

this ^^^^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At last, people are beginning to see the point. Yes I believe you should be entitled to the deposit back which I have previously stated but what were the terms and conditions of the trade in. The OP has admitted he omitted the fact it was a Cat D write off which has a material fact on the contract. I think this is another case where the issue is being egged on which will lead to tears.

 

 

For the £500 involved I'd be walking away and putting down to experience at the moment. It just isn't worth the risk! Morally I think the dealer should reimburse as I have previously stated but then again, morally you should have disclosed the status of the car at the time. At the time of contract you knowingly did not disclose a material fact and there is no escaping that irrespective of what bankfodder says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the dealers response could be:

 

 

Yes we admit that happened but subsequent due diligence checks prior to execution of the contract showed up material facts which had been deliberately withheld. We contend that this was done with intent to defraud.

 

 

How do you intend to get out of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the dealers response could be:

 

 

Yes we admit that happened but subsequent due diligence checks prior to execution of the contract showed up material facts which had been deliberately withheld. We contend that this was done with intent to defraud.

 

 

How do you intend to get out of that?

 

 

Hi Helios

 

the OP should have declared that his car was a Cat D....without question.

 

the dealer eventually did the right thing by hpi checking it and backed off (i would have backed off too)

 

the dealer ought to have held the original deal open but taken the px element out of it.

 

But they cannot 'fine' the OP for trying to defraud them. Only a court can fine you for doing something wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where have Helios' an my posts gone?

 

FWIW I AGREE that the op should get his money back - ridiculous, they can't just keep his money.

 

And I'm not suggesting any fraud either - but the OP SHOULD have declared his Cat D at the time.

 

These motoring boards are getting quieter, which is unsurprising if you're going to censor them to show only your POV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree Oddjob, Bank fodder owns this site and controls it and if he or any or any other members of his site team disagree with opinion voiced then it tends to be moved or deleted. But then hey ho, who are we , or what position are we in to question a dictatorship? It would be nice to know how much he earns out of it too!

 

 

Both you and I have pointed out we agree the OP is entitled to the deposit back (something he seems to have missed) but what we are both pointing out is that a failure to disclose a material known fact on a pre executed contract allows parties to withdraw from that contract and at point of execution!

 

 

To be honest, the reason this site is getting quieter is:

1. Because of the above

2. The lack of credibility in some of the responses. Especially from the site team.

3. The lack of detail in the original question asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 402 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...