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

lloyds win at court? first time?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6197 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

It's fine - it's OK.

 

This was a District Court and a District Judge - it has no bearing on any other cases whatever (I got that gem from Classic FM last night!)

Dummie's Guide to CAG: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

Me v BofS: Charges: £13,048.10 #2a/c Statements from 08/01/01 received. Charges:£5,156.39 Information Commissioner's Office informed June 12th who wrote to BoS, June 22nd for non-compliance. #1a/c: passed to BoS Senior Review Team. Discovered 2 further a/cs, and 3 Loan accounts. "Goodwill offer" of £7,424.23 06/07/07. Accepted (partial repayment). 20/07/07 Top-up payments of £2,558.10 & £1,154.00

£11,136.33 paid back thus far.

New claim issued: 9/07/2007 for 3rd account: £500+ PRESSING ON!

Don't forget - when you win - a donation to CAG would be welcome!

If anything I've said has remotely been of any assistance, then please tip my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened down in England could not happen up here. Lloyds did not attend the hearing but the judge still decided to hear the case anyway (as he is entitled to do) and asked questions the answers of which he used to make his (wrong in many peoples view) decision. If Lloyds or any other bank do not turn up to the initial hearing in scotland then the sheriff will grant your decree as long as every thing is in order and you win simple as that.

 

However if the bank DOES turn up and Lloyds might chance thier arm now and argue that these are not penalties but a "fee" for a "service", then you would have to counter that argument using the information that is available on this site and others. If the sheriff then believes you have a case they will decide what evidence is needed and request that to be made available at the next hearing. I believe this is why no bank will go before a sheriffs court because of the consequences of providing the evidence regarding thier charges/fees.

 

HOWEVER if the sheriff is not convinced by your arguments then you will LOOSE and if it is a summary cause you will be LIABLE for some of the banks costs. This is why you must be prepared and know all your arguements and facts inside and out, because you can be sure that the banks solicitors will!.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]They don't like it up 'em Mr Mannering :-o

 

Abbey Claiming £1241.00

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) requested - 17/02/2007

Prelim sent - 26/03/2007

LBA sent - 13/04/2007

Summary Cause - 22/05/2007

Form 11 - 29/06/2007 (no defence submitted)

Extract of Payment sent 01/08/2007 ALMOST THERE!

*** WON *** Cheque recieved 13/9/2007

 

Lloyds TSB Claiming £1335.00

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent - 07/03/2007

Prelim sent - 13/04/2007

LBA sent - 03/05/2007

Summary Cause - 22/05/2007

Form 11 - 29/06/2007 (no defence submitted)

Extract of Payment sent 01/08/2007 ALMOST THERE

**WON** Cheque received 6/9/2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...