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

Ebay sale of Canon 1DX camera £736 - DPD delivery to wrong address . PAPLOC. Claimform issued.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 102 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

Probably too long winded as usual. Previously you indicated  it would/might be disadvantageous to approach dpd but wait until nearer an expected Court Date. The Notes pdf was an attempt to explain why I intend to deviate from your advice. The query to dpd.pdf is the text of the communication I intend to send to dpd which is amended from the one posted a short while ago.

The quote in blue was bringing you up to date with where the application for a Transcript  request re hearing on 15th August 2023. 

Hope that makes sense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am back at my desk – and don't have to use a telephone.

The message from the "Transcription Agency" – I take it, is the result of a contact from you asking them what has happened to the transcript and they have kindly copied you into a message which they have sent to the court. Is that correct?

This is the transcript of the decision which was made in your pre-trial hearing??

Your notes documents represents your feelings about how your approach to the revelation of the Packlink document should be handled. This correct?

I think it would be helpful if you would post this kind of thing as normal into a post in the thread rather than a separate PDF document. We would normally expect PDF documents to be some kind of official document or something which was sourced outside the thread.


The query to DPD document – is the same. This is a document containing your own thoughts which would be much easier to deal with and less confusing if you could simply post them on the thread in the normal way. Once again, posting them as a separate document would normally suggest that they are some official document or something which has been sourced outside the forum.

In terms of your feelings about how the information relating to the Packlink terms and condition should be revealed, I agree that they shouldn't be held on to the last moment. I agree that the court should not be misled – but I think that they can be held on to for a lot longer and certainly not revealed yet. We should wait for the Farooq transcript which I hope will be along in September.
In fact I was going to suggest to you that you might be kind enough to make your own separate application for that transcript from the judge. We will supply you with all the details and you can explain that the transcript has been specifically requested by a judge in your own case. This should move it along.

Of course we will pay the cost of the transcript. If it is an original copy then I expect it won't cost more than between 50 and 75 quid. If it is simply a copy of a case which has already been transcribed then it will only be a tenner or so.

It will be helpful if you could post the contents or at least the summaries of those two PDF documents into a post. I would like to remove the PDFs because they are confusing to other people who might visit this thread and also make following the story very much more lumpy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Replies .... see red TEXT

The message from the "Transcription Agency" – I take it, is the result of a contact from you asking them what has happened to the transcript and they have kindly copied you into a message which they have sent to the court. Is that correct? YES

This is the transcript of the decision which was made in your pre-trial hearing?? YES

Your notes documents represents your feelings about how your approach to the revelation of the Packlink document should be handled. This correct? YES

We should wait for the Farooq transcript which I hope will be along in September. OK I will delay contacting DPD

In fact I was going to suggest to you that you might be kind enough to make your own separate application for that transcript from the judge. We will supply you with all the details and you can explain that the transcript has been specifically requested by a judge in your own case. This should move it along. I am happy to do this.

I will precis the previous pdf and post directly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now received notification of a  Full hearing set for 4th December.

Preparing for that hearing I have found a document on Ebay that states quite clearly that anyone using the Ebay/Packlink service to select a specific carrier  referred to as a Transport Agency  automatically enters into a Contract with the Transport Agency not Packlink when they signup as described in the document and pay the carriage charge. 

See my message of the 29th August 12.35 which has a link to the document on Ebay.

A short extract is quoted below. It is well worth reading the whole document as the relationship between the USERS ( ie people taking up one of the various options provided) and Transport Agencies is spelled out quite clearly in more than one place.

(b) Packlink is a package dispatch search engine that acts as an intermediary between its Users and Transport Agencies. Through the Website, Users can check the prices that different Transport Agencies offer for shipments and contract with the Transport Agency that best suits their needs on-line

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Any news on the transcript application please?
If not, maybe you might have time to phone the court and also the transcription agency.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Hello,

 

Do we have any update with the outcome of this?

 

The full hearing must be done by now so It'd be interesting to see what the outcome was.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you today?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...