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

Me versus Capital one LEEDS 26th APRIL !


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6230 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

Right its me again have posted about my partners case reguarding transfer to mercantile in this threads http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mercantile-court-cases-stays/75786-mercantile-hearing-leeds-26th.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/57865-donnas-shining-knight-rescue.html

 

I have received the same letters re my C One claim.

have received no copy of the defence which everyone else appears to have its just gone straight from n1 /acknowledgement / then this !

Anyway have goen throught the template of the case management information sheet and at part 5 statements of case the template says

Yes. We believe CPR 18 may only become necessary if the Court directs other than to a Small Claim.

However, the Defendant has insisted the Claimant complies with the Defendants CPR Part 18, the Claimant therefore seeks the Court to order full disclosure and breakdown of the administrative cost incurred in applying the said charges.

now as i havent received their defence or anything besides the acknowledgemnet slip should i say NO and leave it at that ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Donbracho,

 

Don't worry about not receiving the Defence at this stage. It is the fact that your case has been transferred to trhe Mercantile Court that has put things out of the normal sequence. Had the matter proceeeded down the County/Court/Small Claims route, then you are quite right that it would have been N1 claim form > Acknowledgement of Service > Defence > Request for Judgement > Alocation Questionnaire etc.etc.

The way the cases are being dealt with via the Mercantile Court cuts short that sequence and brings in the Directions Hearing requiring only the CMI sheet to be submitted.

I suggest you phone the Court to see if the Defendant has submitted a defence, and if so ask the Court if, now that the case has been transferred to the Mercantile, it is the Court's intention that you should still have a copy of the Defence at this stage.

 

With regard to the quote in your posting, your quote is an example answer sheet for the CMI originating from months ago on the forum. It has been used time and time again since then, but I stress it is only an example and the originator of it had obviously received the Defence and therefore referred to it at Answer 5 on the CMI sheet.

I tried to deal with the point that you have raised on the thread entiltled 'Mercantile Hearing 20th February' where jbarton gave the example answer sheet you have quoted and I wrote a subsequent post (post no. 14 on that thread on 10 Feb) to give the alternative wording if no defence had been received - see that thread. I hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks mate all this help is really appreciated as it happens i received a settlement letter from Capital One today !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...