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

solicitors letter

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6393 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 have had the muppets at bcw after me for two accounts l cca requested back in oct to no effect they say aktiv have sent the info but i still have not received it so wrote to bcw who said they would send it again still nothing untill now this morning received two solicitor letters from pdh solicitors saying aktiv kapital issuing claim against me usuall 7 days before action phoned pdh who would not speak to me but asked me to ring another number about this case guess what it was bcw number

is this getting nasty or is it getting more and more fishy is a solicitor allowed to send a letter to you getting you to contact a debt agency

Link to post
Share on other sites

and also dont forget BCW are committing offences which are classed as criminal under the Data Protection Act






sparkie can you be more specific? what offence is being committed?

post office WON 12/11/06


abbey.LBA sent 30/10/06.MCOL claim submitted 8/11/06.allocation questionnaire sent 16/12/06.schedule of charges sent 16/12/06.WON


2nd abbey claim SAR sent 3/1/07.WON.complaint letter sent 18/1/08


alliance and Leicester.WON

Link to post
Share on other sites



I've posted a lot about Buchanan Clark & Wells Ltd, to enable them to hold any information about data subjects what so ever a company ( DCA's as well) must hold a data processors license obtained from the Information Commissioners Office and be on their register and the address given to the Information Commissioners Office for inclusion on that register must be/shall be of their reigstered office, BCW ltd reg Office is 24 George Square Glasgow, that address is not registered with the Information Commissioners Office therefore by not having a legitimate or more to the point even a license at alllicense they are commiting offences under section 17 (1) of the Data Protection Act, they are commiting further offences by using the data processors licence belonging to an affiliated company AVANCE LTD, data processors licenses cannot be used by someone else nor are they transferrable


13 October 2005

Two companies fined for flouting Data Protection Act

Two companies have been successfully prosecuted by the Information

Commissioner’s Office for failing to notify under the Data Protection Act 1998. in both cases they were given the maximum possible fine of £5000, and ordered to pay£300 towards prosecution costs, by Manchester City magistrates yesterday.

Corporate & Trade Limited and General & Commercial Guarantee Limited who both trade from premises at First Floor, 130 Church Street, Preston, failed to notify with the Information Commissioner’s Office that they processed personal data. The companies are debt collection agencies. Corporate & Trade Limited were written to on five occasions and General & Commercial Limited on three; both companies failed to notify as a result of these letters. Under the Data Protection Act organisations that process personal information may be required to notify with the Information Commissioner at a nominal cost of £35 per year.


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...