Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • deed?  you mean consent order you and her signed? concluding the case as long as you nor she break it's conditions signed upto? dx  
    • Well tbh that’s good news and something she can find out for herself.  She has no intention of peace.  I’m going to ask the thread stays open a little longer.   It seems she had not learned that I am just not the one!!!!  plus I have received new medical info from my vet today.   To remain within agreement, I need to generally ask for advice re:  If new medical information for the pup became apparent now - post agreement signing, that added proof a second genetic disease (tested for in those initial tests in the first case but relayed incorrectly to me then ), does it give me grounds for asking a court to unseal the deed so I can pursue this new info….. if she persists in being a pain ? If generally speaking, a first case was a cardiac issue that can be argued as both genetic and congenital until a genetic test is done and then a second absolute genetic only disease was then discovered, is that deemed a new case or grounds for unsealing? Make sense ?   This disease is only ever genetic!!!!   Rather more damning and indisputable proof of genetic disease breeding with no screening yk prevent.   The vet report showing this was uploaded in the original N1 pack.   Somehow rekeyed as normal when I was called with the results.   A vet visit today shows they were not normal and every symptom he has had reported in all reports uploaded from day one are related to the disease. 
    • Hi Roberto, Read some of the other threads here about S Sixes - they all follow the same routine of threats, threats, then nothing. When you do this, you'll see how many have been in exactly the same situation as you are. Keep us updated as necessary .............
    • Nationwide's takeover of Virgin Money is hitting the headlines as thousands of customers protest that they will not get a vote on whether it should happen.View the full article
    • unrelated to the agreement then, could have come from Lowells filing cabinet (who lowells - they dont do that - oh yes they do!! just look at a few lowell paypal EU court claim threads) no name and address for time of take out either which they MUST contain. just like the rest of the agreement then..utter bogroll that proves nothing toward you ... slippery lowells as usual it's only a case management discussion on 26 April 2024 at 10:00am by WebEx. thats good simply refer to the responses you made on your 4a form response only. pleanty of SPC thread here to read before the 26th i suggest you read at least one a day. dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

No brakes after Arnold Clark do pads


No1Dazzler
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 748 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

Quote

 

New to this site so be gentle lol and sorry for the long post.

I put my Audi A4 into Arnold Clark for service and MOT under service plan. I was informed I needed back pads a tyre and a retaining spring on the front caliper, I okayed the work.

The car went in on the Thursday and after a delay in getting the spring I got it back the following Tuesday with a new MOT. I drove the car our of the dealers and realised I had no brakes the pedal went straight to the floor, I frantically pumped the brakes and the pedal feel came back. I drove another mile and the pedal went again. I phoned them but had to wait for a call back and as it was nearly 6pm I knew I would be stranded at the road side so I nursed it home. The car went back in on the Wednesday morning they had the car for another 13 days. They did give me a courtesy car which broke down on the Saturday and after a phone call to the branch I was told there was nothing they could do for me leaving to deal with getting there car recovered.

The service manager from the branch was honest with me regarding fixing my car although not admitting any fault on there part.

After I got the car back I got a call from customer services offering £75 as a goodwill gesture. Is this fair or should I expect more.

 

 

New to this site so be gentle lol and sorry for the long post.

 

I put my Audi A4 into Arnold Clark for service and MOT under service plan.

 

I was informed I needed back pads a tyre and a retaining spring on the front caliper, I okayed the work.

 

The car went in on the Thursday and after a delay in getting the spring I got it back the following Tuesday with a new MOT.

I drove the car our of the dealers and realised I had no brakes the pedal went straight to the floor, I frantically pumped the brakes and the pedal feel came back.

I drove another mile and the pedal went again. I phoned them but had to wait for a call back and as it was nearly 6pm I knew I would be stranded at the road side so I nursed it home.

 

The car went back in on the Wednesday morning they had the car for another 13 days.

They did give me a courtesy car which broke down on the Saturday and after a phone call to the branch I was told there was nothing they could do for me leaving to deal with getting there car recovered.

 

The service manager from the branch was honest with me regarding fixing my car although not admitting any fault on there part.

 

After I got the car back I got a call from customer services offering £75 as a goodwill gesture.

 

Is this fair or should I expect more.

Edited by BankFodder
Restructured in order to make it readable
Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that you had to organise the recovery of their car. Have you suffered any losses?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How much are the brakes work cost you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well clearly the mistake that they've made was potentially catastrophic and frankly it should be worth more than £75 given the subsequent problems that occurred as well.

However, you will properly have to bring a small claim in the County Court and that will take you months and you would probably expect to get may be about £125 after a load of hassle – and of course the risk of being awarded less than that.

I suppose in the circumstances the £75 has been offered and you can accept it straight away – you may as well take it.

I would certainly be putting up some reviews about what has happened on trust pilot and on Google.

I certainly wouldn't be accepting the £75 on condition of confidentiality

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. It's a nicely positioned offer.

Not enough really to address the problem – but too much to make it worthwhile causing trouble for more.

Obviously someone's given it some thought!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...