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

Bank Is Recalling Decree i won PLEASE HELP


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6132 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

CONGRATULATIONS, another win for us and another lose for them. Well done

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant news and well done for going to court it must be quite daunting. It shows the judges/sheriffs that we are prepared to follow the case through to the end whereas the Banks are just wasting the courts time.

 

Congratulations

My YB account: S.A.R. 11/10/06: Prelim 09/02/07: LBA 17/02/07

Wifes YB account: S.A.R. 11/10/06: Prelim 23/11/06: LBA 27/11/06: Offer Rejection 17/12/06: MCOL 09/02/07

Joint YB account: S.A.R. 11/10/06: Prelim 09/02/07: LBA 17/02/07

My FD account: Settled

Wifes FD account: Settled

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Please everyone need help here ,have received a citation this morning from the court

 

 

The Clydesdale bank has recalled the decree and the case is on the 6th july.Stating they failed to show due to admin error

 

I feel a nervous wreck i REALLY thought this was all finished.

 

Where do i go from here?

 

Can i get a list of cases they have previously done this with to take to court with me.I am at the stage of pulling out of this but at the same time i know that is what they want.

 

Please someone Help

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely if they failed to show and it was their error then I do not see how they can recall the decree.

 

If the situation was reversed and you failed to show up-would you be able, or even know that you could, get the decree reversed?

 

I doubt it.

 

As I am not a legal eagle all I can suggest is that you ring the court and get them to explain it to you.

PPMAN159

 

If this comment has helped please click on the scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would'nt worry to much Katierose,

 

Even if they go to court you will win, again it is just another delay tactic to try and scare you.

 

twoofus

My YB account: S.A.R. 11/10/06: Prelim 09/02/07: LBA 17/02/07

Wifes YB account: S.A.R. 11/10/06: Prelim 23/11/06: LBA 27/11/06: Offer Rejection 17/12/06: MCOL 09/02/07

Joint YB account: S.A.R. 11/10/06: Prelim 09/02/07: LBA 17/02/07

My FD account: Settled

Wifes FD account: Settled

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi twoofus their scare tactic is working it took all the guts i had to turn up on the 8th of June now i have to do it all over again.

 

Do you know if there is a list of cases they have tried this before that i can take with me ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know if such list is available, best person for that info would be Caro.

 

I went to court June 12th they sent an agent along to represent them, but they still settled 10 minutes before the hearing. so even if they did turn up this time chances of them defending are slim.;)

 

I tell you they just love bullying and delaying its what they are good at. But dont give up, the day of my hearing i was so nervous it made me ill, i couldnt eat, didnt sleep, and was continuously sick. But i knew i was'nt going to let them keep my money.

 

Have you called the courts?

 

twoofus

My YB account: S.A.R. 11/10/06: Prelim 09/02/07: LBA 17/02/07

Wifes YB account: S.A.R. 11/10/06: Prelim 23/11/06: LBA 27/11/06: Offer Rejection 17/12/06: MCOL 09/02/07

Joint YB account: S.A.R. 11/10/06: Prelim 09/02/07: LBA 17/02/07

My FD account: Settled

Wifes FD account: Settled

Link to post
Share on other sites

katierose I know it's easy for me to say but try to stay calm about this as you'll just make yourself ill with worry and you don't need that.

 

Caro might not be around so much for a while as there's been a family illness and she has suffered from flooding due to the recent bad weather. Hopefully another moderator with knowledge of the Scottish procedure will spot this and be able to help a bit.

 

I wish I had more knowledge about Scottish claims but sadly I don't :( I nearly made myself ill with worry a few weeks ago and it was all a waste of time as YB/Clydesdale paid out. Like twoofus said they love to bully and use delaying tactics but in the end they DO pay up.

 

You know that everyone reading this forum is right behind you.

 

{{{BIG SUPPORTIVE HUGS}}}

 

Sarah.

Yorkshire Bank

Started Process 19th Sept 2006.

All Stages Followed.

Next Step Court!

Hearing Date 7th June 2007.

WON!!!!! 6th June 2007 :D

 

Frequently Asked Questions

Example Step-By-Step Instructions

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi KatieRose

 

I am the male side of twoofus and my wife mentioned your thread. I'm curious to know what the Admin error is, do you know?

 

I really think if they have just stated 'admin error' as a reason to not show then the courts are bowing down to these bullies. I must remember the next time they slap a charge on an account to phone them and ask for it removed because I had an admin error, I'm sure I know their reply.

 

Unfortunately as Sarah said Caro has a lot on at the moment and won't get much time to come on here but Robertxc is the master of all things Scottish, I'm sure he'll advise you better.

 

Most of all, keep calm its just a very small delay of the inevitable.

My YB account: S.A.R. 11/10/06: Prelim 09/02/07: LBA 17/02/07

Wifes YB account: S.A.R. 11/10/06: Prelim 23/11/06: LBA 27/11/06: Offer Rejection 17/12/06: MCOL 09/02/07

Joint YB account: S.A.R. 11/10/06: Prelim 09/02/07: LBA 17/02/07

My FD account: Settled

Wifes FD account: Settled

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,No they don,t say what the admin error is just that this is the reason they failed to show in court on the 8th.

 

Thanks for all you're support i really need it right now,I have pm robertxc a message so here's hoping he can give some advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a standard tactic. I'm afraid the reality is that a minute of recall is almost always granted. I don't know if it's a deliberate time wasting tactic or they just missed this one, but the best advice is to write to both the court and the bank and tell them that you don't object to the decree being recalled. That way you won't waste time on an unnecesary hearing.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...