Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Supreme court rules


Consumer dude
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5249 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

HI

 

I've only read the brief note on the BBC news website so I don't understand why they reached this verdict

 

One thing I do know is that my claim against Barclays for unfair charges will now be rejected (which leaves me with an overdraft to battle against )

 

hey ho. I can't give them what I don't have.

 

I'll be watching with interest (no pun intended)

=================================================================

remember

 

the Sun is always shining, it's just that you can't see it sometimes

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 360
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

another question then - where there are cases before the court where part of the defence is that there are unfair charges included in the balance - what's the impact of this judgement?

=================================================================

remember

 

the Sun is always shining, it's just that you can't see it sometimes

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter - I like your style!

 

In a lot of cases this is actually all that we can do.

 

I have an overdraft of £2k and charges/interest account for £1900 of that sum so it's been on hold for months awaiting the outcome today.

 

I can't afford to repay the amount so will have to fight.

 

The charges ARE unfair and we need to shout that from the rooftops (and the courtrooms)

  • Haha 1

=================================================================

remember

 

the Sun is always shining, it's just that you can't see it sometimes

Link to post
Share on other sites

let the Guests read and learn

 

This is the most influential consumer group in the country and we need to make sure that we exert that influence as strongly as we can.

 

The charges are unfair - FACT

Most banks have reduced their charges as they acknowledge this - FACT

This judgement does not contradict this - FACT

 

As Peter said, a million cases on hold. lets get them moving and create a groundswell that can't be ignored.

Edited by Sunshine54
typo

=================================================================

remember

 

the Sun is always shining, it's just that you can't see it sometimes

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Bobsp

 

isn't that the point though? you are now paying £8 where it would have previously been much higher. That's because the inflated charges were unfair

=================================================================

remember

 

the Sun is always shining, it's just that you can't see it sometimes

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Bob

 

I agree with you to some extent about personal responsibility but I believe that there are real life, practical reasons why many people (myself included) can't be as controlled about their actual bank balance. For this reason I do use cash as much as possible and also check my balance on line almost daily.

 

I would much prefer a system where I can try to use my debit card (for convenience) and have it declined if I've not got enough money in the account rather than be penalised for them authorising me to spend more than I've got at that moment.

 

The issue of debits going out of an account before credits go in is a case in point. Despite checking with the bank beforehand my son found himself incurring £50 charges due to the process followed by the bank. Why on earth would they not apply credits to an account before the debits if they are all transactions for the same day? It seems to be nothing more than a money making exercise.

=================================================================

remember

 

the Sun is always shining, it's just that you can't see it sometimes

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...