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

any advice please !!1


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4640 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

OH was self employed as a subcontractor, and was struggling to get work,received a tax demand was unable to pay and being rather naive took out a loan for £4,000 from a loan company as a secured loan, repayments were £84.00 per month for 180 months (yes yes I know didn,t realise the amount we would be paying back ), but to cut a long story short, paid all payments up to last £2,000 when OH had to sign on sick with a health related condition, kept demanding their money until I received a court letter in 2005, have got the letter from the court which states:

"Upon neither party attending"

IT IS ORDERED THAT

The Claim be struck out dated 2005, never heard another word from them until 2007, when a letter came stating that no payments were being made re: the account and kindly arrange contact with them to discuss the outstanding indebtedness, never contacted them regarding this as far as I was concerned the court letter stated that the claim be struck out, and I thought that the judge had sympathised with us after paying the loan for 13 years, and decided that we had paid way over the £4,000 originally borrowed,have now found out they are stating we owe £39,000,and are still showing as secured by way of a restriction against the property, obviously thinking a mistake had been made I contacted them and stated as far as I was concerned the debt was finished as of the court letter, THEY stated not the case and that the debt now stands at £39,000.

 

Which means £4,000 borrowed : 13 years @ £1,008 per year = £13,104 Paid , leaving a balance of £2,016 approximately at court date now stating has increased by £37,000 + although have never received any correspondence from them since letter dated 2007 , any advice please !!!!!:sad::-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I note you say OH was engaged as a subcontractor was this within the construction industry ? Did he have any insurances? Was he paying class 2 and/or class 4 national insurance contributions?

Gbarbm

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...