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
      • 162 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

NIP and chances of driver awareness course

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2168 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

Just got a NIP in the post recently, 39 in a 30 zone.


What's the likelihood of of avoiding 3 pts and being offered the speed awareness course?


I'm clean, no points ever, in 30 years driving history. It was from Thames Valley Police in case that has a bearing.


Lastly, I'm not sure if it was me or the missus at that time? We share a car and i'm 70% it was me but can't be 100% sure.


Under the circumstances, I'm going to supply my details and take the punishment. Anything wrong with this approach?



Link to post
Share on other sites

Courses are almost always offered for speeds up to (Limit + 10% + 9mph) - so up to 42mph ina 30mph limit. The other conditions are (1) the offence must have been committed in England or Wales (courses are not offered in Scotland) and (2) the driver must not have taken a course for an offence committed in the three years prior to the date of the latest offence. There is also a slight complication with offences committed in Dorset which need not concern us here.


Your approach to naming yourself as driver is the most pragmatic. Whilst it is an offence to name somebody who you know was definitely not driving it is not an offence to name the person most likely to have been driving. The alternative is to try to take advantage of the statutory defence to the S172 offence. That says that a person is not guilty of failing to name the driver if he did not know who was driving and could not, having exercised reasonable diligence, find out who was. It is a high hurdle to clear and the cost of failure is high - six points, a hefty fine and costs and an endorsement code (MS90) which will see your premiums increased considerably for up to five years.


You can ask for any photographs "to assist in identifying the driver". There is no obligation to provide them but most forces will (usually by directing you to a website). They are usually of little value (the photos are to identify the vehicle and the offence, not the driver). Remember that if you do this, the clock measuring the 28 days you have to respond to the S172 request does not stop.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback.


Good to hear the awareness course is a likely possibility.


I should say my wife is the registered owner of the vehicle and the letter was addressed to her. I'm the most likely person to have drive the car at the time the offence was committed.


I was going to ask for photo evidence - is this likely to reveal the driver or are they not that clear?


If not, I'll ask the missus to put my name down and hopefully I'll get offered the awareness course.


Thanks for the heads-up on the 28-day limit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to ask for photo evidence - is this likely to reveal the driver or are they not that clear?


Don't ask for "evidence". It's not usually a problem but some forces have been known to take this that you are disputing the matter and go straight to court action. Simply ask for photos to help identify the driver (but don't neglect the 28 day clock or you could turn an awareness course into six points). In your case it's a good idea to ask for them.They are often inconclusive (especially those taken from the rear) but they may be good enough to determine the gender of the driver. However, in the unlikely event that they are good enough and your wife nominates the wrong person the police will simply ask your wife to "reconsider" her nomination. They will not go directly to "perverting the course of justice" (a la Chris Huhne/Vicky Price). Make sure that your wife makes an unequivocal nomination. She should not say anything that leaves her nomination open to any doubt. For example, she should not say "It was probably Mr Scoobydoo" or "I think it was Mr Scoobydoo but cannot be 100% sure).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...