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

Unpaid Parking Fine, Sheriff's Officer's, and Attachment Schedule to seize vehicle.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3881 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

The registered Kepler at the time of the ticket is normally held responsible for any tickets gained by the car. Fom what you say there is no evidence that sue is the owner of the car.

 

The current registered keeper of the car would need to apply for. Release of attachment for the car at the issuing court.

 

Regarding SO visits, you need to put it in writing to them that Tom is no longer at the address, a copy of the current council tax demand would help as evidence.

 

But until boh of the above is completed the SO are entitled to attend your address and are acting accordingly.

 

I will also ask CD to look in as a second opinion

 

Ida x

  • Confused 1

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not as simple as you may think.

 

Breaching an attachment can actually be treated as contempt of court - for instance the change in registered keeper to a family member just days after the at AO can be classed as this.

 

As you have no basis to claim any rights to the car, the so's are within their rights to remove the car.

 

Trying to hide the car can also be classed as contempt of court so be very careful.

 

The current owner of the car can apply to the court using form 18 claiming it is owned by a third party.

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

But that is exactly the point. the registered keeper is not always the legal owner.

 

I know the answers you have been given are not what you are wanting to hear but....

 

the fact of that matter is - Sue does not own the car from what you have said.......the SO's are within their rights to lift the car when they find it............

 

The members on cag can only give advice on what you have posted.....

 

 

 

I doubt very much that any judge would accept the current 'owner' has any legal rights to the car as it was transferred only days before the AO was granted unless they can provide evidence that money exchanged hands and as said above that Sue is using the car without any valid insurance.

 

Whether you agree or disagree is you choice whether to accept it or not,

 

 

  • Show your signature

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...