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

ajbajb vs M and S


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6201 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

Good luck, Andrew.

 

Regards, Rooster.

If this has been useful to you, please click on the scales at bottom left of post. Thanks.

 

Advice & opinions of Rooster-UK are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Please use your own judgment.

-------------------------------------------------------

LOOK! Free CAG Toolbar.

Follow link for more information.

 

------------------------------------------------------

Please donate,

Help us to help others.

 

 

LINKS....

 

Forum Rules.

FAQs....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great stuff Andrew.

 

Unsure how M&S deal with this. Will be interesting to know.

for FAQs & Step By Step

click here

for Templates Library

click here

for Court Bundle

click here

________________

 

WON 121o121 'vs' LloydsTSB

here

WON 121o121 'vs' Halifax C C

here

WON 121o121 'vs' Cahoot CC

here

WON 121o121 'vs' LloydsTSB (again)

here

 

________________

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Their defence has been filed by Kate Eaves of DG Solicitors in Birmingham

 

It reads as follows :

 

1) The Claimants Account is governed by the Defendants personal and/or business banking terms and conditions

2) Pursuant to the Defendants terms and conditions the Defendant is entitled to make a charge for its services as set out in the Defendants Price List, including an overdraft review fee for considering whether to provide and providing and overdraft

3) The Defendant denies that the charges applied to the Claimant's account amount to penalties at Common Law and/or unfair contract terms for the purposes of Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCRs)

4) The charges applied to the Claimants account are reasonable, and are properly and fully disclosed in the Defendants terms and conditions and published price list. The charges represent the contractually applied price for the services provided and the UTCCRs are not applicable to them; alternatively they are not unfair contrary to the UTCCRs. Further the charges are not default charges and, accordingly cannot amount to a penalty

5) Save as set out above, each and every allegation made by the Claimant is denied. For the reasons set out above, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief

 

Given that this is a store card, their defence has left me baffled - any advice gratefuly received.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

i have my m+s statements but cant see the usual stand out charges- except 1 letter charge @ £15- the only other charges are the interest. what were your charges called on the statements- thanks in advance

I've beat HSBC, GE Money and Abbey

 

Court pending V Barclays and Time Retail

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...