Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
hehe know it very very well you are in scotland you totally ignore a private parking speculative invoice is NOT A FINE. in scotland they are a scam dx -
it does NOT SAY WILL... read it again... instructed does NOT MEAN WILL..it has no legal meaning... and the 'they' is not the legal debt owner.... stuff and all any 3rd party DCA can do, let alone any dca in the 1st place..no legal powers whatsoever..none of 'em. all the debt owner can do is the same as you or i if someone owes us money...start a court claim. dx
-
-
I found it cheers Dave!! I think focusing on lack of compliance with legislation should be the one, seeing as we just lost the case to them by not complying, it will be worth pointing it out. I also want to poi t out their m.o. Which is less than honourable to say the least. Hopefully the judge will side with the little old lady and not the peoppe who use deceit to line their pockets!! She said she is happy to speak up but is kindly asking for assistance in the form of a bullet pointed printed paper for her to take in so she can read out her points and leave it at that (without rambling). Straight and to the point!! Daves post #66 is legendary 🙌 Thanks for the help guys 😊 Let's kick some ass -
By BankFodder · Posted
I differ from my site team colleague slightly in the the six-month rule applies if you have asserted your rights within the six months. My understanding is that you haven't asserted your rights during that time. In other words you haven't informed them that you are giving them a single opportunity to repair and if they decline or if the repair fails then you are rejecting the car for a refund. Please correct me if I'm wrong. On that basis, you are covered by the consumer rights act but not in terms of the right to reject. You are covered under the consumer rights act in that you are entitled to purchase a vehicle which is of satisfactory quality and remains that way for a reasonable period of time. You don't have to prove that the fault existed at the time of sale – although that's what they will try to tell you and even the motoring ombudsman will try to tell you that. But the motoring ombudsman is an industry led organisation which pretends to be an ombudsman but in fact favours the industry and its advice is wrong and even deceptive. I think you should start off by writing both to the finance company and also to the dealership. Describe the fault to them. Send them the evidence you have that the windscreen was incorrectly fitted and the damage which has been caused as a result. Send in the quotation for the work and require them to respond within seven days and that they must agree that the work will be carried out by a competent professional an authorised repairer. Not one of their cheapskate once. Also, you will want them to agree to provide you with a courtesy car. Also have you incurred any expenses associated with this? Travel, car hire, cost of inspections –?? Have you told us the name of the finance company? My site team colleague is correct that if they cause any trouble then you should see them as co-defendants. You can be certain that they will put their hands up. It will go to court. You would sue them for the cost of the work. You would recover your costs of the installation plus your court costs. I don't think you will be able to sue for the rejection of the vehicle on the basis of what you tell us in terms of having not asserted your rights. However you will be able to recover the cost of all the works – making good everything so that the car is in the condition that it would have been in had the replacement windscreen been properly fitted. I wonder who fitted the replacement windscreen? I think I would be out to sue them as well. Post the draft of your letter to the dealership and also to the finance company here so that we can have a look before you send it off. Incidentally to answer your question about what should you do immediately, I would suggest that you send the letter tomorrow. Wait until the end of the week. If they don't respond or if they respond negatively, then write to them immediately and tell them that you are not prepared to do without the vehicle. As they have failed to respond to your putting work in hand and you will be approaching them for the costs of all the repairs and if they cause you any difficulty in you will simply sue them. A bill of about £4000 is easy. It puts you within the small claims track so there is no risk of costs even if you lose – which is most unlikely on the basis of what you say
-
-
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
-
-
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
-
-
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
-
-
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
-
-
SPML/LMC anyone claimed for mis selling and unfair charges?
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 1139 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
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Recommended Posts