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

The sub-postmasters scandal

Recommended Posts

Yes I think that was referred to in the Times as well. In the second article I think it was about the police carrying out their own investigation into the post office. Questions about whether it would simply be the post office which might be prosecuted or whether individuals would be prosecuted.
It also said very clearly that two employees or ex-employees of Fujitsu were also under investigation by the police.

I have to say that all this nonsense about Paula Vennels surrendering her CBE is ridiculous and shortsighted.
If she is allowed to surrender her CBE then she will attract praise for her "noble gesture". She should not be allowed to fall on her sword. It is clear that her CBE should be stripped from her before she has an opportunity eventually to do it of her own back.

I suppose I mainly have the TV series to go on but it is pretty obvious that the email which she sent asking the question whether or not Horizon could be controlled remotely and then explaining that she needed to be able to say that it could not be – was effectively asking to be shielded and simply to give the message that whatever she was told she would repeat but then she felt that she would be to do it with a clean conscience.

She obviously had her own thoughts about it – maybe even inside knowledge but we will probably never know. She walked away with £4 .5 million.

She should be stripped of the CBE and made to return the money.

She should also be made to suffer the ignominy of a criminal investigation into her behaviour.

Once again, simply from the documentary it seems to me that Angela van den Bogerd had a significant hand in it. I understand that she was in charge and a very important figure in the network management. She had been there for 33 years – well before Paula Vennels joined.

And it seems that from her testimony, she was well aware that the system could be controlled remotely but it was simply that she had never been asked the right question.

However, at that level I think one has a duty to disclose information which one knows is going to be relevant and it seems that she stood by silent was hundreds of people were prosecuted, ruined, and some died.



Where is she now?




And where is she?

Do they still have any friends? Do their children even talk to them?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already said earlier that Paula Vennells should not be allowed to surrender her CBE. It should be stripped of her.

In terms of the convictions, there should be a piece of emergency legislation to cancel all of the convictions and the post office then be given a limited time – say two years – to prosecute any sub- postmaster who they believed had been dishonest and negating they have evidence.

Of course the post office won't prosecute anybody – which will underline even more the fact that they never really believed in their guilt anyway.

The very idea that these people should have to appeal against the convictions is repugnant and use a wonderful phrase which came up recently, would itself be "an affront to justice".

  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • honeybee13 changed the title to The sub-postmasters scandal

The firm at the heart of the Post Office scandal continues to be handed numerous government contracts paid for by millions of taxpayers money...



  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
2 hours ago, cjcregg said:

As some kind of moderator shouldn't you be discouraging conspiracy theories rather than inventing them?


That is scarcely an argument to rebut what is being said but I have noticed that you often like to introduce a note of tension into these discussions.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...