Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 1st - all my posts on CAG are made not only in reply to the specific issue the topic starter makes but also in a general matter to advise any future readers upon the related subject - here it is kings interhigh online school. KIH lets take this topic apart shall we so readers know the real situation and the real truth...and underline the correct way to deal with KIH. https://tinyurl.com/ycxb4fk7 Kings Interhigh Online School issues - Training and Apprenticeships - Consumer Action Group - but did not ever reply to the last post.  but the user then went around every existing topic here on CAG about KIH pointing to the above topic and the 'want' to make some form of group  promoting some  'class action' against KIH . then on the 2nd march this very topic this msg is in was created. all remarkably similar eh? all appear to be or state..they are in spain... ....as well as the earlier post flaunting their linkedin ID, (same profile picture) that might have slipped through via email before our admin killed it.., trying to give some kind of legitimacy to their 'credentials' of being 'an honest poster'....oh and some kind of 'zen' website using a .co.uk  address (when in spain- bit like the Chinese ebay sallers) they run ... and now we get the father of the bride ...no sorry...father of a child at the uk-based international school in question posting ...pretending to be not the 'other alf... do you really think people are that stupid..... ................... nope you never owed that in the 1st place... wake up you got had and grabbed the phone - oh no they are taking me to court under UK jurisdiction...and fell for every trick in the book that they would never ever put in writing that could be placed in front of a court operating under their stated uk jurisdiction wherever you live. T&C's are always challengeable under UK law this very site would not exist if it were not for the +£Bn's bank charges reclaiming from 2006> and latterly the +£Bn's of PPI reclaiming both directly stated in the banks' T&C's were they claimed they were legally enforceable ...not!! they lost big time... why? a waste of more money if you've not got a court claim....... why not use them for a good outcome...go reclaim that £1000 refundable deposit you got scammed out of . people please research very carefully ...you never know who any of these people are that are posting about kings interhigh and their 'stories' they could even be one of their online tutors or a shill . don't get taken in. dx      
    • @KingsParent thank you for sharing your experience.  I also tried contacting the CEO but didn’t get very far. Do you mind sharing his contact details?  kind regards   
    • Thank you Rocky for the clarifications though they did cause a problem at first since an original windsccreen ticket was  of a different breach some time before. The current windscreen ticket only states that you were parked there for 6 minutes which is just one minute over the minimum time allowed as the Consideration period. There is no further proof that you parked there for any longer than that is there? More photographs for example? Moving on to the Notice to Keeper-it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First there is no parking period mentioned on it. there is the time 20.25 stated which coincides with the W/S ticket but a parking period must have a starting and finishing time-just one time is insufficient to qualify as a parking  period as required in Section 9 [2] [a] . Are there any different photos shown on the NTK comapared to the w/s PCN? Not that that would make a difference as far as PoFA goes since the times required by PoFA should be on the NTK but at the moment Met only appear to show that you stayed there for 6 minutes. Another failure to comply with PoFA is at S9([2][e] where their wording should be "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; ". You can see on your NTK that they misssed off the words in brackets. Met cannot therefore transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable. Then their is the discrepancy with the post code on the NTK  HA4 0EY which differs from the post code on the contract and the Post Office Postcode Finder which both list it as HA4 0FY. As you were not parked in HA4 0EY the breach did not occur. In the same way as if you were caught speeding in the Mall in London, yet you were charged with speeding in Pall mall London [a street nearby] you would be found not guilty since though you were speeding you were not speeding in Pall Mall. I bow to Eric's brother on his reasoning on post 12 re the electric bay abuse  That wording is not listed on their signs nor is there any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them. He is quite right too that the entrance sign is merely an invitaion to treat it cannot form a contrct with motorists. Also the contract looks extremely  short no doubt there will be more when we see the full Witness statement. As it stands there is no confirmation from Standard Life [or Lift !] on the contract that Savills are able to act on their behalf. Also most contracts are signed at the end of the contract to prevent either side adding extra points. So their percentage  chance of winning their case would be somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02.    
    • @dx100uk no, haven’t received any correspondence as of yet. Still waiting on a court date but seems to be taking forever. Have noticed an increase in unhappy customers on here
    • They threatened to do this to me (as per the thread I made). Sent me some over-dramatic emails and texts counting down the days until someone would visit me (and advising I still I had a chance to "resolve it amicably" rather than deal with their agent). Not only did they never send anyone, but any underpaid monkey that did turn up would have only got a  two word response. Just a new scare tactic, even if they arrive. 
  • 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
      • 160 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

Andy Long/GA Motors - issue with car that we have just bought - ghosting us!

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 185 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

Bought a car from Andy Long, didn't know he was possibly a con man.   -   The car has trouble starting,  tried to contact him but he isn't answering calls - if we try from a new number he answers straight away, then when he knows who we are he puts the phone down and ghosts that number too!

Not sure about next course of action, apart from having it repaired then taking him to court for the bill (if possible?).   Why is he still operating?

I noticed that @Lancashirelass76 sorted out her issue, (removed - dx)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please can you tell us about the car.

Make, model, year, mileage, price paid, how did you pay.

How did you buy it? Did you go to the dealer? Did you buy it simply through some advert? Did you go to collect it? Was it delivered to you?

Has it got a MOT? Is it a new MOT? Who issued the MOT? If the issuer wasn't the dealer, was it issued by some MOT station close to the dealer?

All that for starters

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather not say too much as he may read this and identify who I am.  The car was viewed, test-driven, but then delivered.   It has an MOT (12 months), issued by a garage near the dealer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you worried about him identifying you?

Don't you want him to pay you your money back?

Bank Fodder's questions are important. Answer as many as you can.

A biggie is, how did you pay?

  • I agree 1

We could do with some help from you.



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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly there is scarcely any chance that the dealer will know about this thread – but if they do, then they will start to take you rather more seriously than they have done so far.

Also, you may well find other people who have had similar problems with the same dealer will join the thread and that will be helpful to you.

There is no downside in naming the dealer. We aren't here to play secret squirrel. We are here to help you.

Secondly, what is the name of the MOT station which issued the MOT? What is the date of the MOT and how many miles had the car done when the MOT was issued? How many miles has it done now?

Also, you say the car was delivered to you. Why didn't you drive yourself? How many miles away are you from the dealer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, AntLancs said:

I'd rather not say too much as he may read this and identify who I am.  The car was viewed, test-driven, but then delivered.   It has an MOT (12 months), issued by a garage near the dealer.

If you're concerned about being identified, we can change your username for you. If you want to change it, send me a PM and I'll organise it for you.


  • Like 1

Illegitimi non carborundum




Link to post
Share on other sites

Make/Model:  Seat Ibiza.   Advertised on Autotrader.   

The MOT is a new MOT, it was tested at 'The Garage, Crown Street, Accrington, BB5 0RW' on the 19th of July 2023.  78,578 miles.   The testing organisation and inspector's name:  S004011 MMC MOT STATION, K. Mehrban. 

Car cost: Just under £3,000.  Paid by bank transfer on delivery.   The reason it was delivered is that he said he would get it valeted - the car was a little dirty when we test-drove it and agreed to buy it.

Other than the car having trouble starting from cold, it 'appears' ok.   I think it's either the fuel pump or the pump breather valve.


  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How many miles is it done now since the MOT?

You say that the car is not too bad other than the starting problem. You are guessing at the possible cause.

You haven't told us the date that you purchased the car but I am guessing that it is more than 30 days ago which means that you have lost any right to reject the car automatically under the consumer rights act.

Have you had any professional opinion as to the cause of the starting problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been trying to contact him since before the 30 day deadline, also stating the problem in multiple texts from multiple numbers to his mobile before that date - with delivery notification.  He just refuses to reply or talk to us on the phone.

Our next step will be to take it to a garage to see if they know the cause of the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

we know him very well..


Click the link^^


  • Like 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, AntLancs said:

Just wondering how he has been allowed to get away with it for so long, he should be in prison!

One of the reasons is that people try to make these complaints but won't reveal the name of the dealer because apparently they don't want to be identified – but of course this means that the dealer not been identified gets away with it – is that such a mystery?

14 hours ago, BankFodder said:

And How many miles has it done now?

How many miles away are you from the dealer?

Another reason why he gets away with it is because when we ask questions from people who come to us for help, they don't answer and we have to drag it out of them.


Have you had any professional opinion as to the cause of the starting problem?

Another unanswered question

We may be able to help you. It's going to be difficult – but you are creating more work by not addressing the questions we put.

Also, did you visit the dealer's premises in order to buy the car? How was the purchase made?
When it was delivered, was it driven to you or is it brought on a transporter?


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did identify the dealer, Andrew Long.   I did say that we have not had a professional opinion to the cause of the issue (that's the next step).  We went to purchase the car if it looked ok, but were put off buying immediately by him saying he wanted to valet it first.  We are about 15 miles away from his premises.  When it was delivered, it was driven by a woman, with him accompanying her in a different car.  They said they were off to a campsite for the weekend and it was on the way anyhow.

I'm at work right now, but can tell you the mileage later on.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We did pay a deposit when we went to view it, paid £100 by bank transfer while there.   When I say we were put off buying it immediately, I mean he put us off taking it immediately with the promise of cleaning the car.

The current mileage is 78826, it was 78578 when it was MOT'd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. You have told us that the car isn't too bad and this sounds as if you would prefer to keep it.

Is that correct?

Whatever the situation I think it might will be an idea to get a new MOT from some independent garage in order to check the condition.

We have considerable experience here people find cars with new MOTs which were carried out at MOT stations which are uncomfortably close to the dealer.

I would suggest that an independent MOT would be a good idea so that you would understand exactly what you have got.

You should tell the new MOT garage to be very strict and stringent with their test

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it the same garage which issued the failure or a different one?

Also, you haven't answer the question as to whether you would rather keep the car or return it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...