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

Excel Parking..outside NOW!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5947 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

Wife received a "NOTICE TO OWNER OF INTENT TO ISSUE COURT PROCEEDINGS" from Excel.

She's not the owner as the car is a lease car and she is not the driver (that would be me).

This is the first correspondence that she has received and it states that "YOU HAVE LOST THE RIGHT TO APPEAL" and amount of claim £100.00

 

It also states that "Liability for the pcn charge lies with you the owner/keeper/driver/hirer"

 

I have read the stickys but am unsure of the best way to approach this.

 

Firstly don't panic - this is a notice on an intent to issue court proceedings and not an actual official document.

 

I am going to make an assumption and presume that your wife is either the registered keeper of the vehicle or that the lease company as the registered keeper of vehicle forwarded it on to you or supplied your address.

 

Using the template letters in the stickies, Your wife should write back acknowledging their letter. She should state that she is the lease holder on the vehicle. But as such neither she nor the lease company are responsible for the debt. Include the paragraph from the templates asking them to back this claim with the necessary statute. Ask them to contact the driver on that day.

 

Remember your wife is under no legal obligation to name the driver.

 

One other thing some lease companies will pass on these "fines" with an administration charge. You probably should check that they haven't done this case. Most contracts include provision for tickets with the backing of statute (i.e Penalty Charge Notices, Fixed Penalty Notices) not private tickets. Some companies even pay these "fines" on your behalf. Make sure if there are such terms in your wife's lease that she advises the lease firm that this is a civil notice that you are disputing and they should not pay on your behalf or charge you for it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

"May we point out that the onus is on you as the registered owner of the vehicle to prove that you were not driving the vehicle on the day in question"

 

As other have said absolute crap. I would use the template letters. Point out there is no such thing as the registered owner only the registered keeper. Also point out the onus of proof is on them as this is a civil case. Ask them to provide statute or case law that proves their claim.

 

"Failure to supply this proof could result in either debt collectors being instructed or legal proceedings being issued in the County Court to recover the monies due"

 

 

This is a demonstrably false statement and is threatening to say the least. IMO it constitutes an offense under Section 40 of Administration of Justice Act. You might want to include a paragraph pointing this out to them and that should they persist with this line that you will consider reporting them to the police, OFT and Trading Standards.

 

As they are now making threats I would issue them with a cease and desist letter.

  • Haha 1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...