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

Office Of Fair Trading Test Case


Guest Wild Billy
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5862 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 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

if it was known a month ago why over the last few days has there been over 400 on this thread . we all wanted the court to make some sort of ruling but it would have been better to involve the ones who it is going to concern , us the poor people who have been ripped off time and time again and so it seems will do for a while longer

Link to post
Share on other sites

post this press piece then...

 

Why do you doubt what i'm saying?

 

Do you think seven banks and two regulators woke up on thursday and

simultaneously decided to trot off to court without talking about it?

They signed an agreement, hundreds of lawyers were involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Wild Billy

This is painfully simple so I'm going to leave you to think about why the announcement was made to the public at around 6pm on the evening before the papers were filed at court the next morning. The only thing that surprised me was that it wasn't announced the following morning as is the norm in such circumstances. Once you've figured the answer out, you'll understand why it isn't a matter for the general public...

 

And of course this is a decision that would have been reached in the weeks or months before it was announced. Surely that's obvious! You can't just knock up a court case, instruct lawyers and draft everything in a few days! And of course there were meetings! Didn't you know the OFT and FSA were investigating bank charges? It's been in the news you know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Head in hands.

 

I'm saying we now know the negotiations were going on well before thursdays announcement. I'm not saying we knew they were talking about

beforehand.

 

If you'd bother read Chris 66 post properly and my subsequent answer

it might just shove you in the right direction

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is clear that the banks have been in negotiation with OFT for a long time over the investigation. It was the stalemate reached within the investigation which has lead to the test case along with other matters. Peter Mcmanara on Radio 5 stated another reason was the possibility of a test case being raised elsewhere and the inconsistencies in approach of the different courts were also cited as reasons.

 

We in conjunction with MSE & Govan have been moving towards a test case ourselves so it was inevitable that at some point a test case was going to happen and it is to be welcolmed.

 

The possibility of stays has always been looming and it is an inevitable feature of gaining a resolution for once and for all. Whilst it is an inconvenience and may indeed cause hardship for some if not many, it is for the greater good in the end.

 

It is true that we were not aware of the actual test case, however, as CRF points out we were aware of talks between banks and OFT.

 

It is deeply regretable that OFT failed to inform us and other campaigners and consumer groups of this or to consult us on the content of the agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FSA are funded by the banks and are a Private Limited Company. They were not formed by the Government,

 

After the Data Protection Act 1984, the FOS ceased development of a large database set up to track persistent late payers and defaulters.

 

They didn't shelve it, but passed the development to the FSA, who have made this available to the Financial Institutions.

 

The Credit Reference Agencies were originally formed by the Financial Ombudsman Service (set up by the Govt), or the FSA (this is vague).

 

Who owns Equifax and Experian, and where do they get their information from? Can I make a default record?

 

Sound underhand? Tip of the iceberg.

 

The FSA should have responded to my 13 page complaint by saying "we do not deal with individual cases, you should seek help from an organisation who gives a ship". Instead I heard nothing.

 

The OFT responded.

 

We need to put more taxpayers money into the OFT and fire them up. the FOS go through the motions but are quickly waking up to the fact they are under the spotlight, and "what have you been doing for the last 10 years?" They are on our side. The FSA and the BBA are in the Cognac club.

 

The OFT are under funded. The FOS will have a look at it after lunch. The FSA will consider their position and go with the best scenario which enables them to survive and thrive, basically, puppets.

 

The BBA will fight the banks corner to the death.

 

I have always considered the deduction of these charges as theft, and have on several occasions considered making a police complaint against the members of the board.

 

Any delay in my claim is accruing interest at a rate I wouldn't get anywhere else, but I understand the position of those who need the money quickly, and who have probably been hardest hit by these vultures.

 

Tide

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Wild Billy
It is deeply regretable that OFT failed to inform us and other campaigners and consumer groups of this or to consult us on the content of the agreement.

 

Either deeply regretable or legally necessary!

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah thats weird how martin lewis only knew 30 mins before it happened but you knew 1 month ago..

 

crfx250 never said HE new about this a month ago, he said the BANKS knew about it a month ago.

 

It is now common knowledge that this deal has been arranged behind everyones back, for over a month. That is why Martin is so angry.

[COLOR=#2e8b57][B][SIZE=1][U]Claimed & won so far[/U]:-[/SIZE][/B][/COLOR] [COLOR=#2e8b57][SIZE=1][COLOR=seagreen][U]Banks[/U]:- NatWest Personal £1000, Natwest Business £2000, Lloyds TSB Personal £1500, [U]Mortgages[/U]:-Central Capital (PPI) £500, Natwest MEAF £140 [/COLOR][COLOR=#2e8b57][U]Credit cards[/U]:- HSBC Gold card £365, Capital One £599.55 Barclaycard £1070 ( i only aske for £700) , Lloyds £500 [U]Catalogues[/U]:- Littlewoods Direct Flex Account £60 :D [/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR] [COLOR=#2e8b57][SIZE=1][B][U]For Friends[/U][/B]:- Natwest £1500, £1800 & £500, Cap One £600, Barclaycard £400, Solutions £100, Aqua, £105.[/SIZE][/COLOR] [COLOR=#2e8b57][B][U][SIZE=1][COLOR=seagreen]Pending:-[/COLOR][/SIZE][/U][/B] [COLOR=seagreen][SIZE=1]Barclays Bank Personal (On hold - Thanks a lot OFT) :mad:.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/COLOR]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Wild Billy
He never said HE new a month ago, he said the BANKS knew a month ago.

 

That is why Martin his so angry.

 

Why should he be told beforehand!? Or anyone else? Just because we would like a running commentary, it doesn't make it legally possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

crfx250 never said HE new about this a month ago, he said the BANKS knew about it a month ago.

 

It is now common knowledge that this deal has been arranged behind everyones back, for over a month. That is why Martin is so angry.

 

Thanks for that. I'm glad someone grasped it

Link to post
Share on other sites

you meant it was common knowledge meaning people knew... its now obvious to normal people that this was organised a while ago... thats obvious now...

 

Everyone knew that a test case would happen sooner or later - really don't see what your issue is with this

Link to post
Share on other sites

TGFT-at last the voice of reason. Reign in the testosterone guys. We are ALL the victims in this & the banks have us doubting our own convictions & arguing the toss amongst ourselves. Keep the faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A final reminder...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum-rules-please-read/9-forum-rules-please-read.html

 

Please pay particular attention to the following;

 

...Above all else..be respectful and reasonable to people..

 

There is clearly a discussion here that most, if not all, users will be interested in and keen to take part in. There will also be many differing points of view - you are not correct simply because you post here, so please bear this in mind when responding to these opinions.

 

It is very easy to remain polite and considerate. Further posts that are not will be removed.

 

This is not about censorship or freedom of speech, it is about keeping some order.

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wild Billy:

 

Originally Posted by zootscoot

It is deeply regretable that OFT failed to inform us and other campaigners and consumer groups of this or to consult us on the content of the agreement.

 

Either deeply regretable or legally necessary!

 

Could you explain why it might have been 'legally necessary' not to consult with the consumer groups?

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...