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

Oh The Audacity of DG


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5615 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

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

O-h-h-h-h-h!!!!!!!!!! I see you've got your naughty hat on then Auburn:rolleyes:

PD will be affronted again!! :wink:

 

Thanks for the scales tip freaky, I'm a bit like PD now - we're kind of in uncharted waters, but the main thing is support and encouagement where we can, I think :)

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

hells fire if it has you flumexed. what they hell hope is ther for me:confused:

 

see I knew i saw 1000 some where.............so I was half right...............lol

 

opps sorry PD if you are affronted again. tis that freakies fault...............

rockin all over the world

Link to post
Share on other sites

why do you think i'm being so quiet'!

 

Well, I did wonder Latty, - thought I'd gone deaf for a while there:rolleyes: - LOL

- but I know what you mean.......:)

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

excellent!

 

Yes Latty, I had seen that on it's original thread and commented that the judge seemed to have made his mind up already that they were penalty charges as he told Barclays to stop charging them - not 'alleged penalty charges'.

 

As Kenny says , it's only one case, but hopefully the thin end of a massive wedge!

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been saying since they started to stay our cases we should be asking the judges to do that.

 

Our efforts to prove the lawfulness or not of these bank charges have been stayed therefore the charges themselves should also be suspended until the lawfulness is proved.

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Pete, - 'well done Judge Abrahams' I say, -

 

He's just proved that they're not extinct - judges with common sense who are living in the real world! :rolleyes:

 

Pity he won't be judging the 'Test Case' , eh? :-| :)

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conversely, how about this one :

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cases-stayed-pending-oft/109936-find-out-here-if-14.html#post1093385

 

This judge sounds like a candidate for the Court of Appeal - and his name is 'REASON' - I think not! I've heard of bias, but this is ridiculous! It's for people like him that the test case has to be brought, or he'd probably have thrown 'em all out anyway!:evil:

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening Auders, I'm planning a revolution to take over the world..... Who's in??

25/01/07 Statements collected online

27/01/07 Prelim sent

09/02/07 Thank you letter received (and duly ignored)

12/02/07 LBA on its way

27/02/07 MCOL filed

26/03/07 Defence entered

02/04/07 Notice of transfer paperwork received

10/04/07 Lattie's hastner sent

19/04/07 AQ arrived (never mind lattie!)

20/04/07 Last Chance letter sent to DG, AQ filled out.

08/05/07 AQ returned to courts, cc'd to DG

11/06/07 Request for the defence to be struck out sent after not hearing from the court for 5 long weeks.

14/06/07 Directions hearing set for the end of August. 10 long weeks away.

14/06/07 rob-the-viking waits yet longer......

23/08/07 DG apply for a stay, instantly granted by judge.

29/08/07 The waiting begins again, 7 months since prelim was sent.

 

"If you kick a Tiger in the ass, you'd better have a plan to deal with it's teeth!!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...