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

sample filling of claim


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6296 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

I used the one above in the Scottish Procedure post.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/scotland/6165-scottish-procedure.html

 

I just edited my details to suit and entered them into the form. The sheriff's clerk checked it over and said that it was fine. so I'd do that.

 

DT

 

By the way typing it in is a bit of a pain so you could try copying this and pasting it in to the form(Check my spelling though!!!:p) I had to do it twice and cunningly copied and pasted the wording into a word document.

 

 

The Claimant, XXX, has held a bank account with the defendant since on or before XX/XX/XXXX the account number being 12345678. The defendant deducted from the account various amounts of money in penalty charges during the period XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX These charges were in respect of "charges as notified" (levied if a cheque or direct debit payment was returned unpaid because the specified overdraft limit had been exceeded)

The Claimant contends that these charges were legally unenforceable and the Claimant is demanding the repayment of these monies due (Copies of correspondence can be provided)

No admissions are made by the Claimant as to the incorporation of any term into the contract between the claimant and the defendant purporting to entitle the defendant to levy these charges. If the defendant is able to establish that the contract did contain such items, the Claimant will contend that these charges are unenforceable at law, being penalty charges designed to penalise the claimant for a breach of contract and generate profit for the defendant rather than being liquidated damages designed to compensate the defendant for the actual loss occurring to the defendant as a result of the breach.

The Claimant claims from the defendant a sum equivalent to the amount unlawfully debited to the Claimants account in the period from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. These sums are detailed in the attached schedule.

The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.

The Defender has a branch in (YOUR AREA HERE) therefore it is under the jurisdiction of this Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...