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

witnessing


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5020 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

Comment please if this is right.If at the time of the loan the only person in the office apart from the borrower is the agent of the lender who is doing all the paperwork then surely there is not a valid witnessing of the BOS as there is noone else there to be an independent witness. Also if there are two agents of the lender in the office, one does the paperwork and the other "witnesses" the BOS signing. how can that be a valid witnessing as both represent the lender.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Comment please if this is right.If at the time of the loan the only person in the office apart from the borrower is the agent of the lender who is doing all the paperwork then surely there is not a valid witnessing of the BOS as there is noone else there to be an independent witness. Also if there are two agents of the lender in the office, one does the paperwork and the other "witnesses" the BOS signing. how can that be a valid witnessing as both represent the lender.

 

point is that it doesn't seem to be requirement for independent witness - seeBOS Act AttestationThe execution of every bill of sale by the grantor shall be attested by one or more credible witness or witnesses, not being a party or parties thereto . . . . . . F1Annotations:Amendments (Textual)F1Words repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1898 (c. 22)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

These are very valid points & one of the points I argued in my case:

From my defence

"Attestation should be by a credible witness who is not a party to the bill. I believe that being an Underwriter for the Lending Company may make the witness partial to the outcome and at very least this is an unfair relationship. I believe that this should void the Bill of Sale, in respect of the personal chattels comprised therein."

I believe previously LBL have won cases stating their employees cannot be discarded as witnesses.

Personally I see their point. ie the receptionist on the front desk will most likely not be paid a % bonus within their salary & hence should not be discriminated as a witness, for example.

The underwriter may get a % bonus, hence has a financial incentive in the outcome, and hence is not impartial.

UNFAIR RELATIONSHIP.

UNFAIR RELATIONSHIP has never been argued in court, with LBL & BoS.

Perhaps the lender dont wont it to go to Court? I personally believe it is a valid defence point, but shouldnt be relied on soley.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...