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

Are penalty charges illegal in Scotland? (long)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6237 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

***title should read 'criminal', instead of 'illegal'***

 

 

I posted this before in the Campaign section (this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/24118-take-campaign-unlawful-illegal-3.html) , but it received scant reply. I think, and i hope, that this was because, the issue I raised related to Scotland and there are a lot less of us on here who are subject to Scottish Law than English Law.

 

I thought i'd post it again in the Scottish section, to see if anyone has any comments.

 

The post was about whether or not the application of unlawful charges might constitute a criminal act:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeusie67 viewpost.gif

Has anybody with a Scottish perspective considered the common law offence of extortion. It's definition in Scotland allowed Wheel Clamping to be declared a criminal act several years ago (Black v Carmichael 1992 SLT 897), while it still remained legal in England and Wales.

 

I think there might be some scope for arguing that the Banks are making threats (either implied or express) in association with demands for payments.

 

Best opprtunity to put this into action might be to incur a charge, but then close the account before they can remove the funds from the account. When they threaten to take legal action unless you pay the outstanding unlawful charge, they are, it might be argued, committing a criminal act under Scots Law.

 

Anybody else got any views on this?

I've looked a little bit more into this issue. Here's an excerpt from Sir Gerald Gordon's "bible" on the Criminal Law in Scotland (3rd Ed. Vol II pp 250-251):

 

"When can money be lawfully demanded under threat? Lord Thomson indicated in Silverstein (v HMA 1949 JC 160) that to demand money under threat was criminal unless the threat used was regarded as legitimate. This is to some extent circular- threats are criminal unless they are legitimate- but it serves to emphasise that the use of threats to obtain money is generally criminal, and will be so regarded unless it can be shown that in the particular case it was legitimate. Some Scots judges have gone further than this and suggested that any threat by A that unless B pays him money he will act to B's detriment constitutes the crime of extortion [three cases are referenced here] This, however, goes too far, and it is neccessary to consider in what circumsctnes money can be legitimately demanded under threat. Generally speaking, one may say that if either the threat or demand is in itself illegitimate, there will extortion [emphasis added]; if both are legitimate in themselves the use of the threat to enforce the demand may not be criminal, provided that the threat and the demand are linked in a way recognised by law as appropriate....it is not extortion to threaten to sue for a due debt if it is not paid.

 

...

 

Legal Process. Legal Process is a recognised form of pressure, but there are circumstances in which a threat by A to sue B may amount to extortion. It is suggested that it is extortion for A to threaten to sue B for a non-existent debt unless B pays £x, whether or not A is entitled to £x from B [emphasis added]. A threat of legal process is legitimate only where the threatened action is directly related to a legitimate demand."

 

It appears that it is also important to establish that the Banks knew that their demands were extortionate.

 

In view of the fact that English registered Banking institutions are making demands for money against persons domiciled in Scotland, and Scottish registered Institutions are making threat from Scotland against individual in all parts of the UK, in respect of unlawful (or illegitimate) charges, I would argue that these action falls within the definition of the crime of extortion in Scotland, provided by Sir Gerald Gordon and are prosecutable as criminal acts under the Common Law.

 

In case you've never heard of him, here is a link to an article about Sir Gerald Gordon in the Scotsman Newspaper a few weeks ago:

 

Scotsman.com Living - Judge, sheriff, teacher, author: honouring Sir Gerald Gordon's lifetime achievement

 

All we need to do now is find a willing complainer and persuade the Lord Advocate in Scotland that the Banks are committing extortion, and that it is in the public interest to prosecute them.:-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...