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

Teebum vs Carboot


teebum
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6246 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

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Got this reply by Email, do I now send LBA?

 

Dear Mr. *******

I refer to your letter dated 29th January 2007 regarding your cahoot Current account. I have taken ownership of your particular case in order to provide a response to the issues you have raised.

We do not accept that cahoot charges are unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The object of these Regulations was not price control nor were they intended to interfere with people's freedom to agree the terms of their contracts.

It is well known that banks make charges and cahoot charges are in line with those of other banks. The terms and conditions of the account and the charges that apply are clear and fair and were provided to you at the time you opened it. You freely agreed to the terms and conditions and the charges when you opened the account. You were not under any obligation to do so and could have gone to another bank if you did not agree to the charges. Equally, you are free to move your account to another bank at any time if you do not agree with the charges.

In any event, we do not agree that the charges are disproportionate. The charges are reasonable and proportionate to the administrative costs incurred by cahoot.

I am therefore unable to refund the charges you've incurred fully appreciating the disappointment this may cause.

If you need anything further please do not hesitate to contact me.

Please be assured I have carried out a full investigation for you and I hope you feel I have offered a fair response to all of the issues you've raised. I will keep your file open for the next 8 weeks and if I don't hear from you within that time, I will assume that everything is resolved and will close your file. If you remain dissatisfied though you can find details of how to take your complaint further within Abbey at http://www.cahoot.com/legal/legal.html#importantInfo under the heading 'Complaints policy'. The complaints policy also explains your ultimate right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Lets get it back

Link to post
Share on other sites

Difficult..... as Cahoot is Abbey this might put their nose out of joint. And also, each claim is mutually exclusive, so the fact that you have won on one claim doesn't have anything to do wth the other ....YET....however, I would then reconsider if it got to court. If a judge sees that they have paid you before, then he may well decide that they it would be inconsistent if they didn't pay you again.

 

On the other hand, if Abbey sees they have already paid you, they might decide that a court would probvably rule in your favour on the premise that if they can agree to one, why should they turn down another?

 

So really, I have been no help at all:) someone cleverer than me will come along soon and help you out!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think it depends on the claims - if they are substantively the same type of claim, then possibly a paragraph in LBA on the lines of

"as you will see, this claim embodies the same principles as my previous claim with you(RefXXX), which I recovered in full. I therefore see no arguable reason as to why this current claim should not be treated in the same manner"

 

or something like that!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Sent the LBA with the line mentioning that I had already won against Abbey.

 

As you will see, this claim embodies the same principles as my previous claim with Abbey (Murphy/ICK), Court Case No 6MK03624 , dealt with by Inga Kirkman which I recovered in full. I therefore see no arguable reason as to why this current claim should not be treated in the same manner

Lets get it back

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...