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

Sainsbury's Bank - A farce


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5829 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 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest willowb

Bloomin' eck girl you've kept schtum haven't ya?:o

 

I really can not believe that a company that size could be so astronomically stupid!:eek: .....are you going to counter claim?

 

Wxxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

seat.gif Subscribing.

Please note: I give advice, in good faith, based on my reading and experience. Please satisfy yourself, that any advice given is accurate in content before acting upon it.

A to Z index

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/site-questions-suggestions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

...........................................................................

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Battleaxe

rosierose,

Fascinating and how great for them to be so foolhardy. Do these clowns think they are above the law? Guess they do. Please let us know the Court date and where, this could be entertainment value.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rosierose, good luck with this one, I am just subscribing so looking forward to following your case!:)

CLICK ON THE SCALES IF YOU THINK I HAVE HELPED!

 

I AM NOT SCARED ANYMORE!:rolleyes:

 

MBNA - To quote "The Carpenters", We've Only Just Begun..................;):D

HSBC - Settled.

Capital One - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued.

Goldfish - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued.

Tesco - SAR issued.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

This situation has been unfolding for a while now but it may just be time to air it...

 

In Oct 06 we sent an s78 request along with SAR to Sainsbury's Bank. They replied around 2 weeks later with copy statements only - about the same time that they defaulted on the agreement.

 

We continued paying until they committed an offence (Dec 06) and then informed them that payment would cease until they complied with their statutory obligation.

 

It was at this time that the telephone harassment started, up to 8 calls a day, seven days a week.

 

By the end of Jan we had sent a number of letters to Sainsbury's asking for the agreement, asking that they cease the telephone harassment and reminding them of the law and how it applied to their actions etc. All were resolutely ignored, except one – they sent a letter claiming to have already sent a copy of the agreement, which we vigorously contested and threatened them with the police. A week later we received a letter saying they would forward the agreement under separate cover. Needles to say, it never arrived.

 

By this time the 8 calls a day were getting beyond a joke, so we asked TS to intervene. They wrote to Sainsbury’s asking that the agreement be sent, that the harassment cease, that any defamatory information be removed from CRA files and inviting Sainsbury’s proposals for compensation for the breaches of the Administration of Justice Act & DPA etc. TS also passed the case to their enforcement section.

 

Sainsbury’s reaction to the intervention of TS was… nothing. They completely ignored them. The telephone harassment continued, the letters promising “a visit” – no change.

 

We then sent an s85 notice. I think you can probably guess the reaction. NADA

 

Then TS enforcement stepped in. They are currently preparing a prosecution under the Administration of Justice Act 1970. Sainsbury’s have so far ignored them too. And the police are now investigating them for offences under the Communications Act 2003.

 

This morning we got an LBA from the bank saying 7 days or court. GOOD LORD! :o This is just incompetance on a monumental scale.

 

Well, if anyone fancies a giggle I will post the hearing date.. I do hope it gets that far. I can't wait to call TS and the police as witnesses :D

 

 

wooohooo Rosie, I do love a nice story like yours, hope it has a true fairy tale ending :D

 

spread the word about the petition please :)

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just subscribing. Massive respect. We have pursued a similar course with Cap 1 but they only ring 2 or 3 times a day. Just considering whether to report them to TS and I really think it's about time we did.

 

Good luck and I would love the chance to come along to court too. We could have quite a CAG Barmy Army

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rosierose adding my good wishes. These companies are beyond belief aren't they? And this one takes the biscuit. How long have we all thought that these big names are well oiled machines, on top of their game and hugely efficient. I really think the problem is they have spent zillions on fantastic computers and downgraded their human activity to save cash and it's all backfiring fabulously. in this case looks like Sainsbury staff have been crossed with a PC a sort of an R2FU.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tam

Make you a deal you sign mine i'll sign yours.

Oh OK i'l sign yours anyway you smooh talker.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I honestly don't believe (most) people at that organisation are being vindictive, just, well.... a bit thick; and somewhat arrogant.

 

I really wouldn't want anyone to go to prison, but I would dearly love to see some of their higher ups dragged infront of a magistrate to answer for their actions. Oh yes, and a public apology tattooed onto the chairman's.... We'll see :rolleyes:

 

Rosierose! I must take issue with this, what I wouldn't do to see the entire staff of the CEO Office at MBNA's Chester Towers marched into Wormwood Scrubs for 3 months!!

 

I am a kindly soul usually!:D

CLICK ON THE SCALES IF YOU THINK I HAVE HELPED!

 

I AM NOT SCARED ANYMORE!:rolleyes:

 

MBNA - To quote "The Carpenters", We've Only Just Begun..................;):D

HSBC - Settled.

Capital One - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued.

Goldfish - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued.

Tesco - SAR issued.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...