Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 160 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

Bev & Tony stuck big time!! ** WON **


fire fox
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6194 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

My interpretation of this is that you should provide exactly what is asked for:

 

1) A list giving each charge, the date, the amount, and the reason given on the statement.

 

2) Copies of the statements showing each of these charges.

 

3) The basis of law on which you believe the charges are unlawful - this is really a skeleton argument. This is what I used:

 

4 I contend that the charges listed above are not intended to represent or relate to any alleged actual loss by the Defendant, but instead are levied with a view to profit.

5 I also contend that the contractual provisions referred to by the Defendant, and contained within their Terms and Conditions are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Common Law.

6 In support of this contention I would cite section 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), which states:

· A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

· A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

· Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

· It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

· Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.

7 Schedule 2 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), gives “an indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair”. Under section 1(e), it is stated that a term which has the object or effect of “requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation”, should be considered as an unfair term.

8 Under section 8(1) of the Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), it states that, “an unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer”

9 Under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, it states that, “A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

10 Should the Defendant try to pursue the argument that these charges are not penalties, but instead that they are the price of a contractual service, I would disagree with that argument, and would cite the following case-law:

· In the case of Lord Elphinstone v. Monkland Iron and Coal Co [1886], Lord Watson stated that: "There is a presumption (but no more) that a charge is a penalty when a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".

· In the case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. [1904] 12 SLT 498, the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract as oppose to a charge which represents a penalty.

· In the case of Wilson v Love [1896] 1 QB 6Z6, a tenant farmer agreed to pay an additional rent of £3 per ton by way of penalty for every ton of hay or straw that he sold off the premises during the last 12 months of the tenancy. The clause was regarded as a penalty because at the time hay was worth five shillings per ton more than straw, and thus the landlord was unjustly enriched to the tune of 5s for each ton of straw sold.

· In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd. [1915] AC 79, the House of Lords decided that a liquidated damages clause would be considered a penalty and therefore unenforceable where the sum to be paid by the defendant was 'extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be provided to have followed from the breach.'

4) As the banks have not gone into court there are no decided cases - but the above case-law should be enough.

 

Don't forget to include a Statement of Truth at the end - this is vital.

 

Send to both the court, and the defendant. I would advise sending to the defendant by recorded delivery. It will be deemed served on the second day after posting, they then have 28 days to respond. If they don't, then you can ask for judgement to be entered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks a lot Alan for such a prompt assist.

I assume I can find a Statement of Truth on the site or do I just put one together?

Do I need to point out that the evidence for point 3 covers point 4 too? (Am afraid they may look for any reason to strike out as I sent the draft order in the first place)

Can you confirm that I dont need to print the "court bundle" as shown in the library? And finally...do I need to do a Disclosure by list? I have printed so much stuff off I have confused myself !

 

I will definitely be one of those donating as I am under no illusion that I could have acheived all this without the site.

Thanks again

Tony

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just noticed in another thread that jonni2bad has advised not to include without predjudice letters from the bank or our responses to them in a court bundle. Can you tell me why that is please? I am posting mine on Monday and will need to take them out but could do with understanding why.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Without Prejudice" on a letter means that the letter cannot be shown to the court. I believe the exception to that is when there is a discussion over costs, when such documents can be shown as proof of an attempt to reach a settlement.

 

If you do include such documents in your pack the other party can object to their inclusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Urgent help needed tonight please. Where can I find the transcript of the radio interview with Peter McNamara. I ned to post my bundle tomorrow and cant find it. I have already stated it is included so I need it. Also,re the above post....as it says "without predujice save as to costs" shall I include it or not?

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter McNamara BBC radio -Sept 2004- sound file & transc

 

Do I print off my schedule of charges with the 8% total showing as at today

No, same as the date you filed, daily rate takes care of the rest.

Click on the time in your taskbar. Reset date to date you filed. Open s/s and print off. Reset date

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry to be a pain but Im not completely clear on that.

So are you saying I only charge the daily rate up to the date I filled ie Dec 6th? Whay happens to the time between thenand now and the court date in April?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks so much Michael. So if I have got this right ......I alter the date on my pc to 6/12/06 (the date I filed my claim) Whatever the total figure is I print off.

Then I put the date back to today and if it eventually gets settled the difference between the fig as at 6/12/06 and the date they settle is added on? Yes ?

Do they ask for that fig or work it out themselves?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On your claim you should have included a daily interest figure. When you ask for judgement you will just multiply that by the number of days between filing your claim, and the date of judgement.

 

Any subsequent settlement offer should also take into account the number of days between the claim being issued and when payment is made to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to your post....Muggins, my court date is April 16th and I have to send my bundle by the day after tomorrow. How do you suggest I find out if they are going to settle mine too? I am worried to death that I may have done something wrong and wont get paid out.

Tony

ps have you sent your bundle in yet?

 

You could give Cobbetts office a call, to help put your mind at rest.

The only thing I suggest is that you send your bundle in on time anyway. That way, if you receive an offer you are not happy with, there is no chance that your claim will be thrown out due to the fact that you didn't send the bundle in. This way the ball is still very much in your court.

 

As for mine, I'm just putting it together and regardless of what their offer may or may not be I intend to send it in anyway (unless of course, the amount they offer is indeed for the full amount of my claim).

 

Anyways, tony (and bev) stop doubting your ability. You've reached this stage where many have pulled out long ago. The end is near, my friend, have patience and keep the faith. It'll all come good in the end:)

:DSUCCESSESS:D

NATWEST01&02 won over 4k

See how

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/31683-muggins73-natwest.html

 

:)CURRENT CLAIMS:)

HALIFAX03

19-SEPT-07 APPLICATION TO HAVE STAY LIFTED

02-OCT-07 APPLICATION REFUSED

LLOYDS TSB04

10-MAY-07 LBA

 

ABBEY05

19-SEPT-07 LBA

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I am at a very similar stage too, bundle is to be in by the 14th Feb, court date middle of April. I was hoping that I wouldn't have to do it if payment arrived, but I think Natwest and Cobbetts will leave it till the 15th just to make me do all the hard work. Have rung Cobbetts twice, and they said both times that they were waiting for the banks response to my refusal of the first offer. The guy also said that I should procede in sending in info for the court, bummer!!

23-09-06: Data Protection S.A.R Sent

 

06-10-06: Statements Received

 

13-10-06: Pre-Lim Letter & Schedule for £2677 Sent

 

24-10-06: First Refusal Received From Stuart Higley

 

01-11-06: Second Refusal Received From Stuart Higley

 

15-11-06: MCOL Submitted

 

30-11-06: Acknowledgment of Service Received

 

21-12-06: Defence Received from Cobbetts

04-01-07: Offer of £1700 Received from Cobbetts

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bummer alright, I was hoping for much of the same, but hte likelihood of Natwest actually paying up in full (including charges, interest and what they've charged me since filling my claim) is...well let's say I don't fancy the odds. So it's a matter of apologising to all those poor trees that have been felled and getting on with it:(

:DSUCCESSESS:D

NATWEST01&02 won over 4k

See how

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/31683-muggins73-natwest.html

 

:)CURRENT CLAIMS:)

HALIFAX03

19-SEPT-07 APPLICATION TO HAVE STAY LIFTED

02-OCT-07 APPLICATION REFUSED

LLOYDS TSB04

10-MAY-07 LBA

 

ABBEY05

19-SEPT-07 LBA

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me about it!!!! Since starting this bundle I have lost count of the amount of paper we have bought. Fortunately Bev does a lot of it in work. I had to spend £45 on ink cartridges at the weekend as I had gone through so much. The receptionist in work is going to bind them all for me in the morning and then off they go. (Thought they may think I am a pro if they look good too) If they only knew.!! Thanks for your encouraging words muggins, it really does help when you find someone else at a similar stage.

Tony & Bev

Link to post
Share on other sites

Binding, hey. Wouldn't do mine would ya:D

:DSUCCESSESS:D

NATWEST01&02 won over 4k

See how

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/31683-muggins73-natwest.html

 

:)CURRENT CLAIMS:)

HALIFAX03

19-SEPT-07 APPLICATION TO HAVE STAY LIFTED

02-OCT-07 APPLICATION REFUSED

LLOYDS TSB04

10-MAY-07 LBA

 

ABBEY05

19-SEPT-07 LBA

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth a try, thanks:p

:DSUCCESSESS:D

NATWEST01&02 won over 4k

See how

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/31683-muggins73-natwest.html

 

:)CURRENT CLAIMS:)

HALIFAX03

19-SEPT-07 APPLICATION TO HAVE STAY LIFTED

02-OCT-07 APPLICATION REFUSED

LLOYDS TSB04

10-MAY-07 LBA

 

ABBEY05

19-SEPT-07 LBA

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...