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

what should i do next *** WON ***


mbdiss
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6283 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

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

No, put in your charges+£10 data, then put court costs in and total.

 

I'm pretty sure you don't put the interest in here, although I've just had a cold feeling...because you are applying for interest to be added at court's discretion (sp?) in your POC.

 

I'm going to try and get advice on this just now.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I just been to the chatroom and the consensus is that you SHOULD include the 8% on the front (and I'm thinking 'SH*TE!') but as long as the sec69 request is included in the POC then I should be fine (moderate sense of relief).

 

It goes to show that no matter how much reading you do (and my wife will testify I've done a hell of a lot) and how confident you felt when you started, you will always revert to the human condition, which is to SCREW THINGS UP ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I just been to the chatroom and the consensus is that you SHOULD include the 8% on the front (and I'm thinking 'SH*TE!') but as long as the sec69 request is included in the POC then I should be fine (moderate sense of relief).

 

It goes to show that no matter how much reading you do (and my wife will testify I've done a hell of a lot) and how confident you felt when you started, you will always revert to the human condition, which is to SCREW THINGS UP ;)

 

i sure your claim will be fine. btw thanks for all the help

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok sorry about this people this is an updated version of my N1 claim form. just want to make sure i get it right before i file it. so please have a look and tell what you think.

 

The Claimant had an account ******** with the Defendant, which was opened in or around April 2003 and closed around August 2006.

 

During the period in which the Account was operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant.

 

The Claimant contends that such charges are levied as penalties for purported breaches of contract and as such are unenforceable by virtue of common law, the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

 

The claimant intends to pursue the return of monies taken in the form of unfair charges by the Defendant.

Particulars of Claim

 

1. The Claimant had an account ******** ******** with the Defendant, which was opened around April 2003 and closed around August 2006.

 

2. During the period in which the Account was operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in

Accordance with the terms of the contract between the Defendant and the Claimant.

 

3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.

 

4. The Claimant contends that:

 

A) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or relate to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

B) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of common law, under the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 s4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Para 8 and sch2 (1)(e).

 

5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

 

A) The return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £3279.52

B) Court costs

C) Data protection request £10

D) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per year from 10th June 2003 to 30th June 2006, as set out on the attached list of charges, also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.72.

 

6. Alternatively, if the charges are a fee for a service, then they must be reasonable under S.15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982).

Link to post
Share on other sites

me again....

 

Burning the midnight oil mate?

 

@ 5.a. still say you don't need the bit in red, also you aren't claiming back 'any interest charged thereon' (that would be a different issue), you are ONLY claiming sec69 interest.

 

Interest charged by the bank for going overdrawn (where it was the illicit removal of charges that put you overdrawn) is a rather complicated area of claims that I personally have avoided (minefield!) and ISNT related to your claim for sec69 interest.

 

In fact if you had applied 'interest charged' I'm fairly sure you can get sec69 in ADDITION

 

Hope this clarifies....

Link to post
Share on other sites

morning hydra

me again....

 

Burning the midnight oil mate? yeah computer crashed and lost the lot and i'm feeling it now had about three hrs sleep and i have my son here at the mo to.

 

@ 5.a. still say you don't need the bit in red, also you aren't claiming back 'any interest charged thereon' (that would be a different issue), you are ONLY claiming sec69 interest. ok taken that bit out

 

Interest charged by the bank for going overdrawn (where it was the illicit removal of charges that put you overdrawn) is a rather complicated area of claims that I personally have avoided (minefield!) and ISNT related to your claim for sec69 interest. Not sure what you mean here

 

In fact if you had applied 'interest charged' I'm fairly sure you can get sec69 in ADDITION

 

Hope this clarifies....

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean is...

 

The statement

 

5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

A) The return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £3279.52 or £3710.81 if I need to show it with the 8% and any interest charged thereon (as stated in 5.D)

 

The bit in blue is a term inserted because you are claiming back your charges PLUS interest on those charges applied BY THE BANK. You aren't claiming these back are you?

 

The bit in purple is directing them to your sec69 calculations for the statutory 8% awarded by the Judge.....

They are separate issues, thats what I meant by the last paragraph of previous post...

 

 

I see you use MSN....do you have a microphone etc? It might be easier to explain what I mean over Voice Chat.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I also received 2 letters yesterday saying thanks for letter dated 12th Dec!!! must be a new on ethey are sending out to everyone to try and confuse????

make the most of today because tomorrow you can't go back ;)

Batty_uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit looks good mate, you figured out my ramble (excuses for lack of clarity - school run, no coffee, kids in the morning! hehe)

 

Add me MSN, name's same as here and we can chat if needed...do you play games on ur comp btw? I find simulated sensless viloence very therapeutic :)

 

Hi I also received 2 letters yesterday saying thanks for letter dated 12th Dec!!! must be a new on ethey are sending out to everyone to try and confuse????

 

Well it worked! Briefly...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi hydra yeah I think we got it sorted now thanks for all the help. Will add your msn later on. Yeah I play computer game currently playing battlefield 2142 and also counter strike. Got to admit I quite like the simulated senseless violence helps me relax a bit.:p what are you playing at the mo?

have you heard anything on your claim yet?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing further on the claim...

 

Formerly played a lot of BF1942/BF2 but refused to get 2142 cos the demo was poop and I understand the main game comes with spyware...

 

Now playing Company of Heroes and Command and Conquer (RTS games) plus Flatout2 (excellent demolition derby racing game)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i just remove the spywear:-x and the fire wall kills what i can't get rid of.

was looking COH the other day will play some time soon. as for driving games thats what the PS2 is for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:cool:

That's what a USB PS2 controller is for:rolleyes: ;) nah if your playing driving games is has to be a steering wheel

 

If you like RTS tho, wait until March and Command and Conquer 3

 

cool will look out for it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick update filed my claim for today so should be served on Friday.

So if there is anyone looking at this from RBS or cobbets hello it will be nice to meet you. please don't waste the courts time and just pay up now;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

this letter just arived today from RBS

 

Dear Mr ******

 

Thank you for your letter dated 22 December 2006

 

I am sorry that we have not yet been able to resond to you and would ask that you bear with use meantime. We are currently investigating and will respond to you as soon as possible. :smile: :smile:

 

Thank you for your patience to date. :rolleyes: Bit late now claim went in yesterday :lol: :lol: :lol: all the way to the bank.

 

Sandy Watt.

 

just noticed the ref they are using CHGS. lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...