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 
        • 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

Citi hearing. Judge decided £8.00!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6324 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

Before your case is called

 

Arrive in good time.

 

Don't drink to much liquid beforehand - if your case is called while you're in the toilet, it might get dismissed because of your 'failure to appear'.

 

Make sure you have copies of everything with you. Even the things you think you'll never need. A looseleaf binder is good for this, so that you can take out pages if you need to.

 

Have a written list of any important points you want to make, or questions you need to ask. Don't rely on memory for this.

 

Take a notebook and pen.

 

During the hearing

 

Don't interrupt or butt in when someone else is speaking.

 

NEVER call anyone a liar.

 

Don't be afraid to ask for things to be explained to you.

 

Keep calm, don't shout. Take your time if you need to explain something complicated.

 

Write down any instructions from the judge there and then (using the notebook and pen). Likewise, be sure to note down any dates for future hearings, deadlines etc.

 

Good luck! :)

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

judge seemed to have handled a number of these cases, he went through the points quickly, said he could believe costs to banks were c£8,

was not happy citi would not share the data behind there figure of £12 said the burden of proof was theirs to show the figure of £12 not mine as I am not privvy to their accounts

 

anyway he set a figure of £8 for the charges and i get the difference, in essence i get 2/3s of the claim from start to finish

 

citi hired an outside barrister to plead the case, polite and friendly, not au fait with these cases, though will be checking her accounts..

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting!

 

Wonder why the Judge believes it is £8??

Abbey - Claim 1

full hearing 22 Feb 07 - Settled in full £710 :D

Abbey (Claim 2)

full hearing 22 Feb 07- Settled in full £4000 :D

Abbey (Claim 3)

Court date 27 June -

Capital One (claim 1)

£467 Settled in full 20 Sep :D

Capital One (claim 2)

£72 refunded 19 Aug :-D

Associates (Citicards)

claim 8 Aug/judgment by default 30 Aug/set aside hearing 9 Oct/Stay denied, ordered by Judge to reveal breakdown of charges andfull hearing 24 May/FULL DISCLOSURE ORDERED BY 8 MARCH/JUDGE TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE AS NON-COMPLIANCE/DEFENCE STRUCK OUT PAYMENT IN FULL REQUIRED IN 14 DAYS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's not what we want but it is a step in the right direction.

 

Could you contact me urgemtly please. A landline number would be useful

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is very interesting did Citi not provide any evidence as to thier costs. Can an arbitrary figure be handed down with out any basis in evidence?

First Direct - Settled in full :eek:

Lloyds TSB - AQ completed Central London CC :confused:

RBS - Settled in full :p

Morgan Stanley - Settled in full :lol:

Capital One - Settled in full ;-)

Citi Cards - Transfered to Mercantile Court 19/10/06

Nationwide - Settled in full 8)

Capital One Acct 2 - Prelim letter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry where were you in court? Was it anywhere near London as this may be the same team that I will be with tomorrow?!

First Direct - Settled in full :eek:

Lloyds TSB - AQ completed Central London CC :confused:

RBS - Settled in full :p

Morgan Stanley - Settled in full :lol:

Capital One - Settled in full ;-)

Citi Cards - Transfered to Mercantile Court 19/10/06

Nationwide - Settled in full 8)

Capital One Acct 2 - Prelim letter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes not too bad, full post on the mercantile court thread

First Direct - Settled in full :eek:

Lloyds TSB - AQ completed Central London CC :confused:

RBS - Settled in full :p

Morgan Stanley - Settled in full :lol:

Capital One - Settled in full ;-)

Citi Cards - Transfered to Mercantile Court 19/10/06

Nationwide - Settled in full 8)

Capital One Acct 2 - Prelim letter

Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears the judge may of erred here.

 

I have posted my thoughts on this in the general forum before. However, have copied them here as they are particularly relevant to these cases:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/citicards/51086-consequential-charges-arguement.html

 

However, I suspect BankFodder has already thought of most of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that in one of the relevent historical cases a precedent was set whereby if any of the charge is deemed to be an unlawful penalty, then the entire charge is an unlawful penalty.

  • Haha 1

NatWest Charges: £3708.81. Allocated to fast track 14/10/06. *SETTLED IN FULL* 23/10/06 5% donation made

 

HSBC Default Removal and £186 charges: N1 claim issued 28/11/06 *WON* 28/02/07 5% donation made

 

Egg Charges: £370. N1 claim issued 24/11/06. *SETTLED IN FULL* 12/01/07 5% donation made

 

Natwest Student: £150. N1 claim issued 24/11/06. *SETTLED IN FULL* 10/12/06 5% donation made

Natwest Credit card: £317.01 INCLUDING CONTRACTUAL INTEREST, *WON* 30/11/06 5% Donation Made

 

Ikano Data Protection Act deception and non-complience: N1 claim issued 28/11/06. *SETTLED IN FULL* 12/12/06 5% donation made

I am not a lawyer. All advice is merely my own opinion. Nevertheless, I've won £4675 so far!

Tip my scales if you like my advice :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...