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

Seminole v Abbey: £10,235 RECEIVED


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6372 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 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Flamin jay ZOOSE!!!

 

 

Well well well...

 

Let's get going then chap... Oh, and it might be worth mentioning to the court that others have had their microfiche statements no problem, but you had to go to court for yours... deliberate attempt to conceal the money owed to you?? That could be seen as attempted theft... especially if the fast-track Judge rules that the charges are unlawful!!

 

Hey - can Fast Track set precedents??!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crap, crap, crap.

 

Grand total is £8,196.50 plus interest of £3.050.74= £11,247.24

 

No wonder they didn't want to send me the bloody statements.

11 GRAND!!! :eek: On the one hand you'll be delighted to get it back, but on the other....what a bunch of robbing bar stewards!

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crap, crap, crap.

 

Grand total is £8,196.50 plus interest of £3.050.74= £11,247.24

 

No wonder they didn't want to send me the bloody statements.

 

Are you sure???!!!!!!!! I am absolutely gobsmacked (It takes alot I can assure you!!) no wonder they didnt want to give out the info,

 

Yes, Big boys Court, Disclosure HAHAHAHA It is all going to end in tears THEIRS!!!! I want to come to court too please (in the public gallery, this is going to be good)

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

WOAH... easy there guys (me included). Let's think about Seminole's feelings here. This must be one HELL of a shock. Let the poor man think about what he's to do. There's the costs issue if he loses, and there's the lights suddenly turned on him like a rabbit in the street starting now. LOL

 

Seminole I don't envy you the decisions you have to make but whatever you do decide it'll be right for you. **sending support waves**

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having gone away and thought about it for a moment, their solicitor (if they are advising properly) are going to tell Scabbey that the Fest Track means that they will have to disclose they way that they calculate their bank charges.

 

Two scenarios come to mind and a question

 

 

Is this the court that can set precedent? if so then this is VERY exciting indeed

 

my guess is that they will be advised of what they will have to do and settle VERY quickly........or

 

they bite the bullet and take the risk of court (unlikely,even if it isnt the court that sets precedents any ruling against Abbey will have huge ramifications)

 

 

 

hmmmm very interesting :D

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Go get 'em Seminole. :D
Amen Sister. Show no mery Seminole. :mad:

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

County court cant set precedents sadly :(

 

Thats a shame, but if they make a ruling is such a case as this with the countless number of bankers (:D ) watching and waiting to see what happened, i am sure that it would have an effect.

 

As someone said before, they are all sitting around a table, trying to decide which one will be the first to take on the BAG in County Court, very Pratchett! :)

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amen Sister. Show no mery Seminole. :mad:

 

i think that the poor bloke is lying down in a darkened room in total and utter shock;-)

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite. I've calmed down now but I'm still trying to figure out the best way to approach this.

 

I have no problems going fast track and I have no problem in funding a claim. The only question in my mind is whether tactically this is the correct approach.

 

There is also the more immediate question of my £30 costs for my DPA claim that DLA want me to forego. I want my 30 quid back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

very Pratchett!

 

Guild of [edit]?

 

No, they are only allowed to [edit] somebody once a day. And they have to give you a receipt...

 

[MODERATED: Please do not post libelous comments on this forum]

A&L: Settled - £6,200

HFC: Settled - £800

Shell Visa: Settled - £250

Egg: Settled - £700

Mint: Settled - £1200

RBS: Settled - £850

 

The opionions in this post are guaranteed to conform to the laws of physics, but pretty much nothing else...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite. I've calmed down now but I'm still trying to figure out the best way to approach this.

 

I have no problems going fast track and I have no problem in funding a claim. The only question in my mind is whether tactically this is the correct approach.

 

There is also the more immediate question of my £30 costs for my Data Protection Act claim that DLA want me to forego. I want my 30 quid back.

 

oooo You are blooming spooky, I have been thinking about all that, all evening :D

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guild of [edit]?

 

No, they are only allowed to [edit] somebody once a day. And they have to give you a receipt...

LOL I perhaps should have said Pratchet - esque, I had goblins and knarled trees and shelves of higgeldy piggeldy books whirring around my head :)

 

[MODERATED: Please do not post libelous comments on this forum]

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

oooo You are blooming spooky, I have been thinking about all that, all evening :D

 

Funnily enough I think they may want to fight me on this as conceding costs concedes a moral victory to the other side. On the other hand this particular rottweiler has a habit of snarling and growling a lot before rolling over and letting you tickle his belly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funnily enough I think they may want to fight me on this as conceding costs concedes a moral victory to the other side. On the other hand this particular rottweiler has a habit of snarling and growling a lot before rolling over and letting you tickle his belly.

 

Add the 30 quid to your claim, you have enough to think about without fighting them on two counts.

 

i am not sure that they will let you get as far as County court, they kicked and fought as long as they could over the statements, perhaps they are all fought out and the fact that you have the statements is their way of conceding defeat, perhaps it may be worth just putting in your adjusted claim and hiding under the table until the postman brings your cheque via securicor, seriously though, i would be sh1tting bricks :) i am not very experienced in all this but i am sure that i can speak for all of us who have watched your thread with great interest, when I say that you have our full backing and support

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

as long as they do the tickling with three crisp new tenners, eh? LMAO.

 

Personally (and I know that my opinion isn't going to influence your decisions much) I would send a note to the court that they have indeed complied with your DSAR but you feel that having pushed you into court action that they should bear your costs in the matter; and I would seriously be leaning towards taking this action for your money. We *KNOW* they won't defend, we *KNOW* they're going to play brinkmanship... but I'm pretty certain that they will NOT go so far as to disclose anything to you that they do not want publicly known. In other words, while the court process is lumbering on, they will be deciding the tiers of offers they are going to send to you and the intervals between them. Eventually they will offer you full and final, the court case can be dropped, and everyone except them will be happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something else that I have been mulling over these past few days.

 

 

I am the head of a huge bank that makes billions every year, a ruling comes down saying that the penalties that I am charging is unlawful, what is the first thing I do? I go to a very highly paid legal practitioner, long expert in these matters and ask for advice.

 

In this case it would seem that the advice given is this, it would seen that you have been unlawful in making these charges but make life long and hard for these low lifes that dare to claim anything bank and question a banks integrity, but ultimately you will have to pay up because eventually some clever dick will come along and ask for more than the small claims court can cope with and you may have to go to Court and disclose how you came to be charging so much, and I dont think you want to be doing that do you?

 

does this train of thought make any sense? or is this just in my own little world?

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

does this train of thought make any sense?

 

Yes. It certainly does.

 

If they were going to fight, this nonsense about "the defence costs are higher than the claim" would be kicked into touch already - they've paid £x-millions rather than fight one?

 

Doesn't make sense does it...?

A&L: Settled - £6,200

HFC: Settled - £800

Shell Visa: Settled - £250

Egg: Settled - £700

Mint: Settled - £1200

RBS: Settled - £850

 

The opionions in this post are guaranteed to conform to the laws of physics, but pretty much nothing else...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know... some of the responses would seem to indicate that they haven't taken any legal advice at all...or any that they have taken is inexpert at best. Look at Abbey; delay, frustrate, conceal, obfuscate - when even lay Joes like us can see what the laws mean. So either they're relying on sheer bulk (like an oil tanker) to intimidate (thus breaking the law anyway) or they really have absolutely no clue what they're doing...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guild of [edit]?

 

No, they are only allowed to [edit] somebody once a day. And they have to give you a receipt...

Well, they'll [edit] you more than once a day if they think it's "justified", but at least you do get a receipt - even if you end up having to take them to court to get it.

 

[MODERATED: Please do not post libelous comments on this forum]

Abbey - Won DPA Claim - Aug 06 and got bailiffs in to recover my court costs of just £30.00

Abbey - Won Charges Refund of £1050 - Nov 06

Egg - Recovered £220 due to Customer Services misinformation - Feb 2007

Nat West - Prelinimary Letter to recover on Credit Card charges £30.00 sent March 2006. £25.40 offered - rejected and the bank reckons that this is it's last word on the matter. We'll see if that's still the case when it reads my N1 form sent recently. It has until the 17th April to respond or the N1 will be submitted.

 

Please check out my web site www.BankChargesScandal.co.uk for Research, Useful links and my story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably unchartered territory, but how unprofessional, just hsows they arent fit to manage anything much

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...