Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good morning,   I just left bigmotor and return the vehicle. Staff from bigmotor wasn’t helpful they start from the beginning I need to have appointment. They mentioned there is no one today from after sell who can assist me today aswell. After few min  manager come to talk with me and collect all documents. All conversation has been recorded with full names for both people who was dealing with me in the store.   Thank you     
    • London1971 - he's sick. He & his partner would like to dispose of or utilise via a rental his uk assets and/or to have access to his own £s (including his pension) - to make his end of days more pleasant.  It seems that is now only going to be possible for his partner via probate if Barc won't unblock his account.   HB - sorry I didn't mean to appear rude. I just meant this post will probs end up having to be morphed over to barc threads ! I do appreciate your input
    • I am quite happy to give a breakdown of what happened yesterday in court, and most certainly if it helps anyone. As you can imagine it was quite nerve wracking, despite knowing I had done no wrong there is always a nervousness that things can go against you. As such, I will confess to not remembering legal terms used etc but will try my best. On arrival at court I was, once again, asked by the claimants representative if I wanted a chat in a consultation room. DWF / Adidas do not send their own solicitor , they use a local company of representatives who all seem well known to court staff and judges. This was the 3rd time I had been to the court and on each occasion it was a different representative. I believe the advice on here is to not get involved in these little chats but I felt comfortable with them. First two occasions they did try to talk me into coming to an agreement but this time he just ran through what would happen in court. Not relevant to anybody else's case but this guy was more interested in my Thai Tattoos as he was a Muay Thai fighter and planning a trip to Thailand to fight out there !! When the time came we were ushered into court and took our seats in front of a judge who was already seated. I have to say it was surprisingly relaxed despite my being nervous. The judge called the representative by name and advised that the rep knew him well, knew he had a "straight to the point" attitude towards civil cases and didn't accept pointless waffle. He then outlined the case and spoke to me advising that he was aware I had no legal background and if any of the legal terms he was required to use were not self explanatory to me just to ask a question. Adidas WS had been written by a Senior Manager of Risk Prevention based in Amsterdam and the judge asked if he was attending. He seemed a bit taken aback when advised he would not be. He questioned how it was deemed as "fair" that I could be cross examined but the Adidas employee could not. The adidas rep said that he had a list of questions he had been instructed to ask of me, but that he felt my replies would all be denial so agreed not to cross examine.  The judge, during his summary, came to the part where adidas said I had contacted them asking where my refund was, and they had paid me due to "customer appeasement". His exact words were "the defendant would have to have some brass neck to actually phone chasing a refund for items he knew he had not returned". He also commented that Adidas had claimed that the return went to an altered postcode but did not include an example of what their return label would have looked like at the time, which seemed and obvious bit of evidence to him.  He then handed over to the claimant to put forward their claim. The claim really consisted of their rep reading through their WS and highlighting things which "proved" my guilt. They had discovered on internet forums that people were altering the postcode and sending out empty envelopes in the place of the goods. This was known as FTID (False Tracking ID) and Instant Refund. Apparently I was refunded within 18 minutes of my parcel being scanned at the Post Office. He also suggested that the altered postcode was pretty damning. This took maybe 15 minutes for the full reading. The judge asked if I had any questions and advised that I didn't need to prove my innocence they had to prove my guilt.  I did make a couple of comments but really could have said nothing. I advised that when returning items to a post office, the first thing they ask you to do is put the parcel on the scales, which made a mockery of the empty envelope theory. They then scan the bar code or QR code, which would require in depth knowledge to be able to alter. I asked if adidas had been to this "altered" post code to recover the goods. The tracking provided by Royal Mail remarked "delivered no signature" I pointed out that adidas claim I was refund within 18 minutes but also say they refunded me following a call I had made chasing my refund, a total contradiction The judge then moved onto his decision. He started by saying that he had no doubt whatsoever that Adidas not received the returned goods. At this my stomach totally dropped.  He then said he had absolutely no doubt that I had returned the goods in good faith, and that the return system was obviously flawed for Adidas to have lost £10.4m. Adidas had provided absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise, and on that basis case dismissed. I walked out to the car park with the Adidas rep who advised me that there was absolutely no chance I was ever going to lose. If he had told Adidas what he thought of their case and evidence he wouldn't get any more work, they had no case whatsoever I am quite certain I will have missed some details of the day so quite happy to answer any questions that may jog my memory
  • 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
×
×
  • Create New...