Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Back to octopus from the smart meter/tariff salesperson. Octopus have now said just ignore the letter - I dont have to have one despite there letter implying (at least) it was required, but that i will HAVE to have a smart meter if current meters stop working as 'their suppliers dont supply non smart meters any more'. I am of course going to challenge that. Thats their choice of meter fitter/supplier problem not mine
    • Point taken that we should inform new Caggers that the £20 option is there in wrong registration cases.  Well, supposedly there, who knows what the PPCs would do in practice.  Anyway, the option is allegedly there with both the BPA as you say, but also the IPC (I've just checked). However, there's a danger here of baby, bathwater. The two easiest types of cases to win are (a) residential - due to Supremacy of Contract and (b) wrong registration - due to "de minimis".  Indeed until recently we has been boasting that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing. We simply can do nothing about a terrible judge.  The judge seems - I say seems because we haven't had all the details - to have ignored "de minimis",. got fixated on a sign and awarded unreasonable behaviour costs.  A totally bizarre judgement.
    • You mean your witness statement 
    • That may be your personal claimed experience I said i didn't want smart meters - you jumped in to recommend smart meters I quite clearly indicated I was happy with being in credit to maintain constant payments - you suggest paying what I owe every month I quite clearly indicated I was happy with being in credit to maintain constant payments - you suggest a variable tariff - even if its one that only varies on a daily basis rather than half/hourly - with prices higher in winter when you need it and lowest in summer when you need it least   politeness ends with: - I'm NOT interested in any smart tariff I see, You are pushing your smart meter + variable tariffs in the wrong place - try pushing them somewhere 'nearer to home'  
  • 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

Flat roof failed after 11 months. Company has proposed strike off.

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 203 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 All,

Flat roof leaking where it butts up to pitch due to incorrect installation of flat roof (confirmed by surveyor.)

Paid for on the 2/11/22 via BACs after getting digital invoice.

Company is active on CH but has active proposal to strike off (Blackpool Roofing Company LTD,) and they are radio silent no calls, emails being answered and they have moved out their office space.

I am right in assuming as it was a BACs payment I can't request a chargeback from the bank and will have to go down small claims route before the strike off is granted?


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was for £1600 and it is this one (sorry got the name wrong);


BLACKPOOL ROOFING SERVICES LTD - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history...

To be fair I have actually just had a call off the guy after I messaged him on WhatsApp, and he has actually agreed to make it right, turns out the two numbers I had been trying numerous times were for the "face of the company" (who has gone into hiding and caused the owner all the backlash resulting in him to just close the company,) but not the owner I only called him twice when the issue first appeared and the call didn't connect so assumed he had disconnected him number so didn't think to message him at the time.

I will see if he actually comes round to put this temporary solution in place as promised, whilst we wait for the weather to calm down so the roof can come off and go back on safely.

I will try and keep post up to date.

Edited by PIXeL_92
  • 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...