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

Message from Guildford County Court to CAG - **NEW** Directions Order


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6074 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

I have just returned from the court collecting some N1's and had a very long discussion with the Court Office Manager and several interesting things came out of the that discussion.

 

Firstly I have full permission from the Court Manager to post this and he knows exactly what I am going to post (he was glad that people were getting their money back by the way :) ).

 

1. Only about 4% of the bank cases every receive a court date and he was not aware of any defendants turning up at court

2. A few cases have been struck out - due to faulty paperwork.

3. Once a defence has been submitted they will try to set an early court date

3. If anyone here would like to sit-in on a hearing they are welcome.

4. A special court day has been set aside as they have put together 20 cases that they expect to be heard, they also listed 50+ cases as well and will add to this list - this will take place on 14th Sept in Court 7 starting at 1030am - CAG are welcome to sit-in.

 

IMPORTANT NEW DIRECTIONS

The manager told me that they are fed-up with the banks not turning up and as I understand it, once they have lodged their defence, this court gives them 7-days before the case will be struck-out in favour of the claimant.

 

They have only just started issuing these new Directions to the banks - he gave me a copy, and it reads as follows, in full:-

 

DIRECTIONS

 

1. The claim is allocated to the small claims track

 

2. The hearing will take place at a place, time and date which will be notified to the parties.

 

3. The Defendant shall no later than 4pm on 13 August 2007 serve on the Claimant and lodge at Court a document answering the following questions: (a) Is the case intended to be contested to and at trial. (b) Does the Dependent intend to apply to adduce expert evidence?

 

4. If the Defendant fails to lodge at Court a document in accordance with paragraph 3. above the defence shall be struck out and judgement will be entered for the Claimant for the amount claimed and costs comprising the issue fee and any allocation fee paid.

 

5. Each party shall serve on the other the witness statements of all witnesses (other than expert witnesses on whom they intend to rely.

 

6. No party may adduce expert evidence unless an application for permission to adduce such evidence has been made and granted.

 

7. No party may rely on the evidence of any witness whose statement has not been served in accordance with this order without further permission from the Court.

 

8. No more than seven nor less than three clear working days before the trial date the Claimant shall file at Court an indexed and paginated bundle of documents which complies with the requirements of Rule 39.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the practice direction thereto, and shall serve a copy of it on the Defendant. The Claimant shall endeavour to agree the contents of the bundle with the Defendant before it is filed. If the Claimant fails to file a trial bundle in accordance with this direction the claim shall be struck out and the action dismissed without further order.

 

9. Because this order has been made by the Court without considering representations from the parties, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed. A party wishing to make an application must send or deliver the application to the Court (together with the appropriate fee) to arrive withen seven days of service of this order

 

Guildford County Court

  • Haha 3

If you think this post has been of help, please click on my SCALES on the left - thanks :-) :-x

 

Peter Anderson

Me Vs Morgan Stanley - WON £490

Me V's LTSB - Private & Bus Acc - £18.8k (since Oct1997)

inc: S.69 Interest (and growing daily) -;)

Please remember to DONATE when you have WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

Post 3 - Bump

If you think this post has been of help, please click on my SCALES on the left - thanks :-) :-x

 

Peter Anderson

Me Vs Morgan Stanley - WON £490

Me V's LTSB - Private & Bus Acc - £18.8k (since Oct1997)

inc: S.69 Interest (and growing daily) -;)

Please remember to DONATE when you have WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam - Hi,

 

I think these directions are intended to speed up the process and force the banks into paying rather than wasting courts time. The other main change on these directions is that Guildford CC are only allowing 7 days rather than (I 'think' in other courts 28days - now that is a major change in our favour.

 

The court manager did say that they were getting very peeved off with the banks, I can see why the banks are doing it though - because they CAN :)

 

PS I ticked your scales :)

  • Haha 1

If you think this post has been of help, please click on my SCALES on the left - thanks :-) :-x

 

Peter Anderson

Me Vs Morgan Stanley - WON £490

Me V's LTSB - Private & Bus Acc - £18.8k (since Oct1997)

inc: S.69 Interest (and growing daily) -;)

Please remember to DONATE when you have WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done,

 

The OFT test case is going to screw me - £18.6k - and just when I was picking the colour of my new Harley Davidson Ultra Electroglide -;(

If you think this post has been of help, please click on my SCALES on the left - thanks :-) :-x

 

Peter Anderson

Me Vs Morgan Stanley - WON £490

Me V's LTSB - Private & Bus Acc - £18.8k (since Oct1997)

inc: S.69 Interest (and growing daily) -;)

Please remember to DONATE when you have WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I did see a thread on the General forum that Guildford are one of the courts that are not issuing blanket stays but are doing on a case by case basis

 

Best of luck on the 14th - please update us all

If you think this post has been of help, please click on my SCALES on the left - thanks :-) :-x

 

Peter Anderson

Me Vs Morgan Stanley - WON £490

Me V's LTSB - Private & Bus Acc - £18.8k (since Oct1997)

inc: S.69 Interest (and growing daily) -;)

Please remember to DONATE when you have WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...