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
      • 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

The 6 year limitation period!

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6406 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

I'm almost at the point of winning, but Abbey have written to me offering a settlement figure of £391.50......My claim is for £987.60 plus my court fee of £80.


The one thing that is worrying me now is that they have said that "This offer however is subject to verification of the bank charges claimed, and will not include any charges outside the 6 years limitation period."


The first of the charges that I am claiming back was on 30/6/2000 and the second was on 29/11/2000.


The claim against Abbey was deemed to have been served on them on 12/12/2006, although I actually started the process of asking for statements on 23/5/2006, having read about the possibility of claiming back charges a month before in April.


Obviously, I am not a accepting this offer but wonder where I stand in relation to the fact that two charges are outside the six year period in relation to my Court claim....although not in relation to my first letter requesting statements.

The second charge is also within the 6 year period in relation to my original request to Abbey for the refunding of the charges having been sent in September and before there 2 gesture of goodwill payments.


Could anyone offer some advice please.



Link to post
Share on other sites

section 32 of the statute of limitations act might get you out of the 6 yr limitation it says:




Section 32 of the Act provides, so far as relevant:

"(1) …. where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either—

(a) The action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or

(b) Any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or

© The action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;

The period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. ….

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty. ….

(5) Sections 14A and 14B of this Act shall not apply to any action to which subsection (1) (b) above applies (and accordingly the period of limitation referred to in that sub-section, in any case to which either of those sections would otherwise apply, is the period applicable under section 2 of this Act)."

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, noting that the 1980 Act was a consolidating Act, said, at p 144, that:

"unless there is an ambiguity, it is not permissible to construe consolidating Acts in the light of their statutory history"

And that

"Much of the difficulty in this case is raised by the investigation of the statutory history and the decisions of the courts on earlier statutes"

He held, at p 145, that:

"Section 32 of the Act of 1980 is not ambiguous. On the plain meaning of the words any deliberate concealment of relevant facts falls within section 32(1) (b) with the consequence that, in applying the statutory time limits, time does not begin to run until the concealment is discovered."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you prushton...I'm not quite sure what to make of that but does it mean that I can claim for 6 years of charges from the date that I first learned about them i.e...From April 2006 back to April 2000?



Link to post
Share on other sites

Basicly, they concealed the true nature of thier charges, they continue to represent them as fair and proportionate and clearly they are not.


"Section 32 of the Act of 1980 is not ambiguous. On the plain meaning of the words any deliberate concealment of relevant facts falls within section 32(1) (b) with the consequence that, in applying the statutory time limits, time does not begin to run until the concealment is discovered."

My reading of the statement above is that you can , but check with a Mod as they have far more experience than myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK....many thanks....I'll go down that road....As I found out about the charges in April of 2006 and sent my first request for statements off on 23/5/2006 and have proof of this (Special Delivery receipt), then the claim for charges going back to 30/6/2000 seem valid.


Abbey have already refunded all my charges for last year (One each in May, June, and July)...and one from 2/11/2005, as they stated in their correspondence that the GOGW covered the most recent charges.


This leaves the period 30/6/2000 --2/10/2005 as the period in which all my other charges were incurred.


Thanks again....



Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...