Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

French v. Abbey (3) - Into the breach once more my friends!


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5131 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 heard that Jules :D You're just jealous PMSL ;)

 

.

 

Hey, i could have her if i wanted her :cool:

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 280
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Corrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!! Can I watch and even join in....... this could be fun! ;)

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well..... a little shock in this mornings post.

 

It was my N1 forms returned with a cover letter saying that my claim is out of date and that a claim must be within 6 years of the reason for the claim!

 

Well..... again!.............. I went back into Court an hour later armed with the Statue of Limitations Act 1980 and asked to see a Clerk, preferably a Manager. I went into a private room and very assertively but nicely asked where in the Statute does it say so! Usual expected answer and I then (nicely) asked if she was legally trained? She said no and I then "educated" her as to Section 32 (b) & © and the easy English layman breakdown of what it means. She was still a little adamant until I reminded her of her depts obligations that they are there as a service and not an Authority. That is the Judges domain and not hers. I think she saw the light then and stutteringly came out with in her defense that they have to advise us of the consequences or problems of any actions brought. Hmmm...... don't you think I/We have done the homework? :rolleyes:

 

Anyway, claim now back in with the Court with a promise that it won't get sent back again! :p

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

you big bad bully Frenchy lol

Abbey £4340.59 *WON* Jan 07

 

Abbey II MCOL 31/03/07 £8800.00

 

Please note..I AM NOT AN EXPERT ANYTHING WHAT I POST IS PURELY MY OPINION AND MAY BE WRONG IT IS JUST BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OR EXPERIENCE

 

Read my latest claim its a fast track potentially

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/61406-noobrider-abbey-take-2-a.html?highlight=noobrider

 

read my first claim which includes attending a directions hearing in court

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/10576-noobrider-abbey.html?highlight=noobrider

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think I already know the answer to this question....but what the heck, it's a useful question to answer.

 

Hypothetically........

 

If you claimed your charges back say a year ago and were successful with only the 8% stat interest also applied and was settled.

 

Could you now go back to them following the section 32 (b) part stating that they must never benefit financially from unlawfully taking money from an innocent party, I could apply to the Courts to recover the compound contractual interest that would have been gained in the eyes of mutuality and reciprocity and deduct what I had already "won" from them in that claim?

 

Just a thought after all, we didn't know at the time about Section 32 and their refusal to disclose the information asked and the consequences of the law of Mutuality.

 

Love to know everyones thoughts and even those of a more legal nature.

 

Cheers ;)

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno Frenchy, i think that a judge would call you greedy, I am really not sure on this one, but my guts tell me that it is a non starter - sorry to burst your bubble hun

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tes you're probably right on that front.... once a claim has been settled in full... that's it! :(

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooooooooo.... found even more statements going back to 1996!! Oh JOY!! :razz:

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I knowwww..... can't help myself :D

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received shAbbeys defence today :rolleyes:

 

Same as all my others including the denial that I cannot claim past 6 years.

 

Here we go again invoking Section 32 (b) & © and interestingly they are not challenging the CCI level 8-)

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

oooo well in that case we shall compare defences as my is due soon, again unauthorised 28.7 SOL and all so we shall see

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok....watch this space then and I'll inform you of my AQ arrival and send/post my draft AQ up here for comments et al. :D

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

well it should be fairly similar as we have the same sort of claim, poc's etcedtc lol

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frenchy, what did they actually say about Breaches? was is EXACTLY the same as the last two, you know why i am asking :-)

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Abbey £4340.59 *WON* Jan 07

 

Abbey II MCOL 31/03/07 £8800.00

 

Please note..I AM NOT AN EXPERT ANYTHING WHAT I POST IS PURELY MY OPINION AND MAY BE WRONG IT IS JUST BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OR EXPERIENCE

 

Read my latest claim its a fast track potentially

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/61406-noobrider-abbey-take-2-a.html?highlight=noobrider

 

read my first claim which includes attending a directions hearing in court

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/10576-noobrider-abbey.html?highlight=noobrider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will re-read the section regarding breaches and report back...... thanks Lula & Noob! :grin:

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope everything above board....

 

They haven't shot themselves in the foot on this one. Their defence is based on Limitations Act and that they are not charges but fees(!) Quite what the difference between the two is beyond argument.

 

No this one looks simple to deal with. ;-)

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems not....... it's like shooting ostriches!

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...