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

In The News


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6392 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

I say an article on the BBC News this morning where they were reviewing the papers and there was an article in one of the papers about someone sending the baliff into his local branch. Unfortunately, I just caught the end of the article and didnt see which paper it was in - would love to know

Regards

Sue

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this is the one, and I also think that the guy involved is one of us :-)

 

A man who was fed up with paying massive bank charges decided to give one of the high street giants a taste of its own medicine.

When Royal Bank of Scotland refused to refund £3,400 charges that Declan Purcell believed he was owed, he sent in the bailiffs.

Stunned customers at his branch of RBS watched as debt collectors seized four computers, two fax machines and a till filled with cash.

The branch manager was told that the items would be sold unless RBS came up with the money owed to Mr Purcell.

Only when the manager gave an undertaking that the debt would be paid did the bailiffs leave.

Mr Purcell said: "I think the bank was pretty shocked when the bailiffs went in. But my view is that this is exactly what they would have done to me."

The move, which will raise a cheer from millions of other bank customers, is part of a consumer fightback against bank charges, which net an estimated £4.5 billion every year.

Every time a current account customer goes overdrawn by as little as £1 most banks will charge around £28, even though the administration cost is only about £4.50.

Then every cheque, direct debit, or card transaction that goes through or is bounced incurs another charge of up to £38.

The Office of Fair Trading is investigating whether banks have implemented these charges unlawfully.

The Daily Mail's Fair Play on Charges campaign and that run by the Consumer Action Group have helped thousands reclaim charges in the past year.

Like other customers Mr Purcell, 48, from East London, had warned his bank that he was prepared to go to court to claim back charges he believes were imposed unlawfully.

In June last year he demanded the refund of £3,400 charges he accrued during the previous six years while running a motorcycle dealership.

RBS ignored the claim so in October Mr Purcell filed an online application to get the money back through the county court.

After 30 days the bank had not responded and so on December 10 the court ruled in Mr Purcell's favour.

It ordered RBS to pay the charges and £120 court costs. When RBS again failed to respond Mr Purcell got the court to give him a warrant of execution, allowing him to order debt collectors to reclaim items from the bank equal in value to the amount he was owed.

Finally on Monday, January 8, a team of debt collectors walked into the busy Camden Town branch in North London, demanded to see the manager, showed their court order and announced that they were repossessing items.

Mr Purcell, who now works for London Underground, said: "I was dismayed by the bank's reaction when I made my claim for a refund – it was so rude and arrogant.

"They thought they were above the law, so it is great to know that customers can use the law in the same way the bank does to get money they are owed."

A spokesman for RBS said: "We are looking into this as a matter of urgency, but early indications suggest that unfortunately due to an administrative error, the bank failed to defend the claim leading to a default judgment being obtained on the branch and a resulting warrant.

"The confusion was cleared up at the branch."

Marc Gander, who set up campaign website Consumer Action Group, which helps consumers get refunds from their banks, said: "I am quite sure that Mr Purcell will not be the last person to send bailiffs in to his bank.

"The continued operation by UK high street banks of their unlawful charges regimes will see to that.

"The heavy-handed debt collecting approach is something that the banks have been handing out to their customers for years. Mr Purcell simply gave them a bit of their own back."

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was also in todays Sun page 14

Woolwich N1 issued 15.01.07 £11k

Acknowledged 01.02.07

Defence Filed 15.02.07

AQ Filed 21.02.07

AQ Deadline 05.03.07

Woolwich AQ late, given till 16.03.07

29.03.07, Judgement rec, woolwich to pay up by 10.04.07

Money received 16.04.07

 

Nationwide MCOL issued 22.01.07 £1k

Settled in full 05.02.07:D

Account being closed

Appeared on Watchdog 20.02.07

 

Abbey Issue MCOL £5k 24.01.07

Defence Filed 21.02.07

29.03.07, AQ hearing set for 20.04.07 with other like cases.

11.04.07, Full settlement letter received for £5,769.12

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is beautiful! :D

If you think my advice has been helpful, please click on the scales to the left :) thank you!

 

Non illegitimi carborundum

 

 

I wish I was a glow worm,

A glow worm's never glum!

 

How can you be grumpy,

when the sun shines out yer bum?! :p

 

 

Amex * 2 *** WON *** Settled

Marbles ****WON*** In full settlement

Capital 1 ***WON*** In full settlement

MBNA ***WON**** In full settlement

Barclaycard ***WON*** In full settlement

Barclays Bank - ***WON*** In full settlement

Abbey ***WON*** In full settlement

Abbey (Mrs Chorlton) ***WON*** In full settlement

Abbey (Mr and Mrs C) - MCOL submitted 16/5/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...