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
      • 160 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

moc1982 v Egg


moc1982
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6178 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 Everyone.

 

I provided Egg with statement evidence that they owed me £80 in charges, but they have replied offering £16 because they reduced their charges from £20 to £16m and that Egg's practise of requiring customers to pay by direct debit meant that the presumption of unfairness in relation to charges over £12 does not apply where exceptional business factors apply, referring specifically to Egg. What should I do? Take it further or just take the pittance on offer? Help!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take it further! The OFT stuff has no real bearing on your claim. Go gettem!

Natwest - DPA sent / prelim sent http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/75363-bump-crapwest.html#post656651

Barclaycard - DPA sent

MSDW - DPA sent

GE Capital - Prelim sent http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/store-cards/72853-mr-bump-frasercard.html#post629618

RBS bank - DPA sent

RBS card - DPA sent

Student Loans Co - pending

Egg - DPA pending http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/79992-bump-humpty-dumpty.html#post707138

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks mate, thats a big help. I'll send a secure email to them now saying what you have illuminated there- by the sounds of it you just have to make out that you are serious about contesting it, and they'll avoid the hassle and pay up...is that about the short and the long of it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I sent by secure message and email:

 

Regarding account number:

 

Reference:

 

FAO Ema Clayton

 

 

Dear Ms Clayton,

 

Thankyou for your letter dated 19th April regarding my request for repayment of charges.

 

I have great respect for Egg's Genuine Pre-estimate of £20, great respect for Egg's Genuine Pre-estimate of £16 and great respect for all future Genuine Pre-estimates that Egg provide.

 

As a former cardholder I cannot help wondering, if after many years in business Egg has ever tried to reconcile Pre-estimates against Post-event audits. I am confident that a company devoted to justice and truth like Egg will not withhold evidence from the cardholder, that Egg will present evidence in court to show after-the-event costs, as well as before-the-event Genuine Pre-estimates. Therefore I intend to file a claim for the £80 charges and I hereby reject the £16 offer which you made in your previous correspondence.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Matthew O'Connor

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...