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

Brooksdad v Woolwich


hughes690
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5058 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

  • Replies 282
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok, i've just looked at MSE DPA request and the CAG one is a little more explicit as regards this, since it includes this paragraph:

 

Furthermore, if I discover that you have levied disproportionate penalties against me, then I shall be reclaiming them, and also reclaiming the enclosed £10 Data Protection Act subject access request fee.

 

That said though, as far as I'm aware only Natwest routinely dispute charges made beyond the 6 years from the date of filing at court rather than the DPA letter, but invariably pay up when challenged and quoting s32 of the Limitation Act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Schedule of charges is just a list of type of charge , amount and date.

 

Use the Simple S/S here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/182-interest-calculation-spreadsheets.html

and visual guide here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bcard-woolwich-successes/7226-maisielou-barclays.html#post50088

 

Overwrite the existing examples type of charge, amount and date.

 

The days since and 8% will be calculated automatically

 

Save it (for use later at court), then delete/hide the last 2 columns (8% bits) and print out as your schedule of charges.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Use the Simple S/S here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/182-interest-calculation-spreadsheets.html

and visual guide here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bcard-woolwich-successes/7226-maisielou-barclays.html#post50088

 

Overwrite the existing examples type of charge, amount and date.

 

The days since and 8% will be calculated automatically

 

This normally works fine. The only thing I can think of is that you may have deleted/altered a formula. All I can suggest is that you open a new s/s and try again.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It seems The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order 2001 applies to NI

 

The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order 2001

Interpretation

1. - (1) In this Schedule -

 

"court", without more, includes a tribunal;

"judgment" has the meaning given by Article 32 of the Regulation;

"magistrates' court", in relation to Northern Ireland, means a court of summary jurisdiction;

"maintenance order" means a maintenance judgment within the meaning of the Regulation;

"part of the United Kingdom" means England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland;

However over £5000 would mean Fast Track, where you would be liable for costs of up to £750 if you lost, but there is Standard Disclosure, which means the bank would be forced to disclose a breakdown of their costs, something they have steadfastly refused to to do. Plus, assuming you managed to overcome the Woolwich's local County Court possible initial reluctance to accept the claim, should there be a Direction Hearing/ Case Management Hearing, you would have to travel to England to appear.

 

If all this sounds too involved, it might be better to split the claim as Paddym suggests.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • 2 months later...
I requested Barclays NOT to send me Cheque payment last Jun (07) at Part Settlement stage but to reduce account debt by the amount agreed.
If Barclays had used this to reduce the debt then by now you would only owe £2000. What happened to the cheque for £3000?
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I requested Barclays NOT to send me Cheque payment last Jun (07) at Part Settlement stage but to reduce account debt by the amount agreed.

 

Last June you were perfectly happy for Barclays to use the part refund to reduce the debt, ie you would not have had use of it nor put it in asavings account, but you would have only owed £2000

 

I would HATE to give it to a DCA to help reduce original debt!

 

Now you don't want to part with it, yet seem to be outraged they still want £5000.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...