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

Recommended Posts

I had to call an ambulance for my wife, but one of the paramedics was not happy, about the condition of our house, as it's cluttered. And he would only see to my wife, on the ambulance itself. After diagnosis they took my wife to hospital. My wife was ill for a few months, and received help from the district nurses.

We then got a call from a social worker, who wanted to visit us, and discuss ways to make my wife more comfortable. When I asked for more details, she became vague, but could give us a phone number, if she visited. I politely declined her offer, as I was coping, along with my daughter in caring for my wife. Then a letter arrived from another social worker, saying similar things, to the first. I didn't bother to reply.

Another letter has just turned up, from the social services legal department, which doesn't say anything specific, but refers to the other social workers trying to visit us. Coming from a legal department, has badly upset my wife, who's recovery was on going, and she now fears that someone will be coming to the house, to do whatever.

Do we have to respond, or take notice of these people.

Also we recently had a fire prevention officer come and fit, smoke and heat detectors.

He didn't voice any concerns with the conditions at the property.

Worried, Paul.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO i would not call it harassment at all but help and you are overtly worrying and jumping to conclusions that are not there at all.

accept it and all the help you can poss ever get, it can't hurt you nor your wife at all.

they are most certainly are not going to nor can come with demands/threats that is done and the house is a smelly mess etc etc etc.

they will provide help to sort any issues

i cant see why you are worried...






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

Posted (edited)

Its to confirm, or not, if there are any safeguarding issues.

These people, as you unfortunately call them, are only there to help, as you and your family are too close to any issues to be objective.

Accept the offer, you might not get another chance.



Edited by Hammy1962

46 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

HMCTS Approved Technical Expert and Independent Motor Trade Consultant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once social services become involved, it is very difficult for them not to attend a property. 

If someone died and later there was an inquest, social services would be under a spotlight about actions they failed to take, that might have prevented the death. This is the reason for the legal department sending the letter.

Not saying that anyone in your household is in danger,  but social services without visiting may be worried about the condition of the housing and possible risk to occupants.

I would suggest that you agree for social services to attend, just so that any concerns raised can be cleared up.

We could do with some help from you.



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


If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...