Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • your claim is against whomever fitted that parts.  
    • I would also take this opportunity to add that I don't really understand why you purchased an insurance policy for this watch – unless it offered you something like new for old, accidental damage or that the policy was transferable to a new owner in the event you decided to sell the watch. If there is not the features that interested you then you are perfectly adequately covered by your consumer rights contained in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and of course it would be unlawful for John Lewis to attempt to exclude or limit liability in case something happened to the watch and it ceased to be of satisfactory quality for a reasonable period of time. By and large these extended warranties are a waste of money
    • Sunak to new MPs at the Kings Speech debate. Rishi Sunak, in the king's speech debate, tells new MPs that "life comes at you fast" on the government benches. "Before you know it you end up with a bright future behind you and are left wondering whether you can credibly be an elder statesman at the age of 44," he adds.
    • Properly declared means that you declared the exact value of the item that you sent and by and large you are limited in the value that you can claim to that declared value.  It seems that you didn't declare the value of the accompanying insurance and so if you want, you can go ahead and claim it and we will help you but by and large although your chances of recovering the value of the watch are much better than 95%, The chances of you claiming the value of the lost insurance are much less.  It's up to you if you want to try . Please do the reading that we have advised and start preparing your letter of claim and post the draft here. I suggest that you think about posting up a draft letter of claim on about Sunday which will give you lots of time to do necessary reading  
    • The dealership is not the issue, the technician who I have known for a long time explained where the fault lies, the other garage for lack of a better word did a very  poor job of putting the brake pad on where the piston was not lined up correctly which caused uneven pressure on inner pad, the peg on rear of pad not sat in grove of piston.
  • 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

redders vs lloyds


pauljredmond
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

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

 

Can someone please tell me whether this is correct. I am claiming on behalf of my girlfriend. Back in November we received the last 6 years worth of statements, all come to £2400 including the 8%.

 

Sent the standard 2 letters from the templates library requesting a refund of charges but only received standard letter back basically saying no.

 

Filed claim with MCOL on 29/12/06. I have just been on the MCOL website and the claim is showing as issued on 29/12/06. Now this is where I need a little advice please. Am I correct in saying after 5 days which would be 3/01/07 it is classed as served and they have 14 days to respond other wise I win by default? As far as I know Lloyds have so far done nothing, we have received nothing in the post apart from the standard letter from the court acknowledging the claim. To my reckoning the 14 days is up on Wednesday 17th therefore should I logon and state payment as the bank has defaulted?

 

Thanks in advance

Red

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Red

LTSB have 14 days from when the claim was served to acknowledge, so if they have not done so by 17th, you should be able to hit the judgement key. BUT the likelyhood of this happening is small, they do usually acknowledge, then enter a defence at the last minute. Just keep checking the MCOL, it will say on there if it has been acknowledged. If they do, they have 28 days from when the claim was served to enter a defence.

Let us know how you get on and good luck!:)

Barty:)

I WON!!!! :D :D :D

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloydstsb-successes/1774-barty-lloyds-tsb.html

 

IF I HAVE BEEN HELPFUL PLEASE CLICK THE SCALES:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...