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

Marsay v Morgan Stanley


marsay
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6477 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 All,

 

I am making headway on quite a few claims at the moment (and will make a donation once successul) but I have one question burning in my head at the moment and I wonder if someone could answer it for me please?

 

After sending SAR letter asking for statements etc....I received a letter back advising that the fees are processed automatically and do not require any manual intervention!!

 

Also that there have been 4 late fees chargs of £15 and one at £20 plus 5 overlimit fees at a level of £20. We intend to credit your account with the sum of £60. This amount represents the difference between all charges applied to your account and the £12 charge we will soon be implementing. We will not be reviewing the administration fee charged in respect of your data protection act subject access request, as this is a valid charge for processing your request..

 

We should be grateful if you would confirm that this offer is accepted in full and final settlement of any issues in relation to charges applied to your account.

 

My question is where do I stand with this as they are offering to refund the difference between what they charged me and the £12 legally allowed? obviously they have not taken into consideration the interest on these charges over the last 6years!

 

I look forward to hearing a response

 

Regards

 

Marsay

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is all very well them now changing their fees, but this is too little to late they have been taking penalty charges from you and they should be made to pay them all back.

 

Have you received your statements yet, if not stick to your request and advise them that time is running out and you will look into this when you have received the information you have requested.

 

In addition to the above make sure you ask to see a copy off the agreement you signed and there TC's you may see a few surprises:wink:

 

Then follow the process and go for the full amount it’s your money.

 

Good Luck.

Best Regards<br />

<br />

Clarkey1<br />

<br />

<b><font color="red"><img src="images/smilies/laugh.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Laughing" smilieid="25" class="inlineimg" /> <u>If I have helped then please click on the scales</u> </font></b><img src="images/smilies/laugh.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Laughing" smilieid="25" class="inlineimg" />

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...