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

CT and Scott & co


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5337 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

Yes, but the council stated that banks do not disclose payments going into your accounts, so thats their excuse.Scott & co stated that they noted the contents of my email.

So no excuses from either of them .I will add the regulations on to the email I send the legal department tomorrow.

Just makes you wonder how many others they have bullied this way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The council can take money directly from your benefit rather than your bank account, the current rate is £3.25 per week.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They allready do this with a previous CT bill taking the money direct from my benefit.I thought it was round about £3.00-£4.00 a week.I think this is the maximum they are allowed by law to take.But they want me to pay this years CT bill as well.Its this bill they have handed over to Scott & Co for collection, not a previous bill as its getting paid by deductions.Council tax bill for the year April 2009 - March 2010.The cheeky sods have today sent me the total bill again stating on it that its been handed to sherriffs officers for collection and I have to pay the whole lot at once.Its not even the end of the financial year as the bill is up to March 2010.

They are just taking the ****.If I was paying monthly, as you can, there would still be 5 months payments to go.I have been told by a relative of mine (my Mum) that while she was on holiday she was a day late in paying her CT bill, she has always paid on time ,they sent her a letter threatning her with Sherriffs Officers as well for being a day late.This is just not on.I am sure that as I allready pay CT by direct deductions from my benefit they should not even be asking me to pay this one at the same time as the deductions would continue until such time that all bills would be paid and you would eventually maybe catch up on CT payments.

They ignore the fact you are on benefits and at risk as a vunerable person ie... someone receiving benefits and in my case disabled as well.Despite me telling them numerous times they don't give a ****.I have even informed them I will be on benefits the rest of my life and I am unable to work ever again.All they want is their money.

Every three years I still have to attend a review at my local job centre and fill up the numerous forms and state why I cannot work, despite being classed as severley disabled by the job centre in the first place.They just tell me its the rules.Its a joke, but if I said I was a junkie, well you get everything.It makes me sick that junkies get Incapacity benefit because they are unable to work.Its self inflicted

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...