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

Anguna Vs First Direct..


Anguna
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6222 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

Hi,

 

I've been following the ' guide ' regarding re claiming my charges, althoiugh they are over the 6 year limit. We sent the first letter with breakdown of charges to which we had a reply saying they don't keep the recors for that long. We then sent them a further letter with copies of all the statements we had so they had all the info needed.

 

They have now sent a letter saying, and I quote...

 

' Whilst I appreciate you have supplied us with copies of your statements from October 98 to July 2000. As advised previously we are only obliged to keep records for 6 years guided by the principle of the Data Protection Act, group policy is not \to keep information longer than neccesary.

 

The timescale deemed appropriate is 6 years and no records of charges or refunds are held for longer than this period. Therefore I am unable to verify these charges and they will not be reviewed '

 

So, do I now send them the letter before court action, as they clearly now have copies of the statements with the charges on them, as I do have the originals. Does anybody have any idea as to where we go from here ?

 

Many, many thanks for any help in advance ?

 

ATB

 

Anguna :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like the key thing is that you have got details of the charges stretching back over 6 years. FD are almost certainly going to try and put you off claiming these but I would now file your LBA. Have you read Bongs thread she has had success with this?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/33005-bong-hsbc-contractual-interest.html

Guide to claiming back your bank charges

 

Most of your questions can be answered by following this link.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...