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

DPD lost +£1300 parcel - issued court claim using Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 **WON**'

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 311 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

I brought a mobile phone contract from iD Mobile with next day delivery by DPD (Dynamic Parcel Distribution).

After I made the online order I changed my mind and contacted iD Mobile's webchat to find out the best way to cancel the contract. The advisor suggested that I refused delivery to speed up the return process. Looking back, this was bad advice as I should have accepted the package and then started a return request... Hindsight is a great thing!

The next day I told the DPD delivery driver (Hamad at DPD in Enfield) that I was refusing delivery and that he should return the phone to his depot.

He then proceeded to take a photo of the package in my doorway and took it away. At the time of thought nothing of it but later on I found out that wasn't the correct procedure for refusing delivery. He shouldn't have taken a photo.. Needless to say, the package mysteriously went missing without a trace!

This was the start of a 10 month battle between iD Mobile, DPD and myself as iD Mobile were demanding £900 plus the 24 months line (£41.02 per month), total: £1,884.48 to have the contract cancelled.

After the incident I recorded every conversation I had with iD Mobile and DPD, and in one of the calls with a DPD customer services advisor, she admitted that the delivery driver incorrectly marked the package as delivered. Strangely, after this call, this information was changed on DPD records. Their notes didn't mention anything about the advisor admitting that the delivery driver incorrectly marked it as delivered... They should be ashamed of themselves!

Ultimately, the recording I made was the proof I needed to beat DPD in court and receive a £1360 payout.

The main reason why I'm posting this message is to highlight a law called 'Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977' which means even if you do not have a contract with the delivery company, you can still sue them if the package goes missing or is damaged and they refuse to take responsibility for it. Also, record every conversation you have with every party.

If this information helps just one person, I'm pleased I posted it!

Edited by Max Powell
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to DPD lost +£1300 parcel - issued court claim using Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 **WON**'
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...