Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 162 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

Proof positive of fees being profit driven!!!


dave&sueb
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6399 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

Please

Start your own new thread

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

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

I'm sure I'm not the only one attempting to find supporting evidence in the fight against these pirates but this is really interesting.

 

The following text appears in the 2005 annual returns for Lloyds TSB (see page 8 of 44)

 

Other income, net of insurance claims, on a comparable basis and excluding the strengthening of reserves

for mortality, increased by £260 million, or 6 per cent, to £4,659 million. Fees and commissions receivable

increased by 9 per cent to £3,315 million as a result of higher income from the strong volume growth in

current account fees and an increase in fees from large corporate business and asset based lending, as a

result of growing customer transaction volumes.

 

The full link is here

 

http:www.investorrelations.lloydstsb.com/media/pdf_ir/2005_ltsb_full_results.pdf

 

This is prove positive, in any context, that the fees are part of their profit building regime!!!

 

Hope this helps someone......I am certainly adding the text to my court bundle and statement of evidence.

 

Interestingly, LloydsTSB refer to their charges as an impairment charge..............see some more text from this document...

 

Our impairment charge expressed as a percentage of average lending increased to 0.66 per cent,

compared to 0.61 per cent in 2004 (page 37, note 13). On a statutory basis, impaired assets totalled

£4,122 million, compared with £3,515 million at 1 January 2005, representing 2.3 per cent of total lending, up

from 2.1 per cent at 1 January 2005, but unchanged from 30 June 2005.

 

Perhaps someone here with more knowledge and experience than me, could make more of this.

Happy reading

Mission accepted!!

All comments are my personal opinion or based on experience I claim no legal expertise!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else have any opinions on this, I think this is a good find dave&sue.

Prelim Req sent 12 June 2006,

LBA sent 26 June 2006,

Confirmation of court action sent 24 July 2006,

Court return date 20 October 2006 - LTSB did not reply,

Court hearing date 27 October 2006 - Decree granted in my favour,

Recall of decree recieved 16 November 2006,

1 December 2006 assigned as recall of decree,

26 January 2007 assigned for full proof hearing,

16 January 2007 1st offer recieved and declined,

23 January 2007 2nd offer accepted, awaiting monies to hit bank account

 

All advice & opinions of o0oLiamBeeo0o are personal opinions, if in doubt seek advice from a qualified professional !!

 

vvv My Thread vvv

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe someone could use this in court to support their case

You may think that but . . ......

____________________________________

Total repaid to date £1947.58

 

Lloyds Currrent a/c £745.27

Moneyclaim filed 17th June

Defence and AQ 25th July. Case struck out 11 Aug

reinstated and hearing 15th Jan 2007

 

Lloyds loan a/c D A request expired 19th June

Proceedings under S7 Data Protection Act issued 29th June defence and counterclaim 27 July

Hearing Jan 3 2007

Listed final hearing April 2007-

Judge declared an interest and disqualified himself

new date to be set

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...