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

Storm blew crate through car window


CrazeUK
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 830 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.
My partner lives above some new shops.  I believe the land is council owned, as the flats are newly built and are council owned.
The shop has a small yard at the back with a fence adjoining the car park.  There are 7 parking spots directly behind this fence.

 

On Friday, the wind caught up a bit, and blew a brown bread crate that was resting high on a metal trolley and on the fence, through the air up and over fence, and strait through the car window.  Luckily, i have a small camera facing the area, so the damage was caught on camera.

Aside from the smashed window, which she will have to pay £100 excess, her pram and baby seat where in the car which are now both covered in glass and shards, along with the rest of the car.

She spoke to the shop owner, who was excessively dismissive, didn't even want to watch the footage of the video - I think he has something against women generally.  When I called him, he refused to provide his insurance details or even accept responsibility of the damage.  I have previously told him about things being blown over from the fence (usually boxes, and plastic wrappers from stock), which i tend to just throw back over the fence as it litters the area.

 

She has spoken to the insurance company, they will replace the rear windscreen, with an excess payment, but wont consider the pram or baby seat as it wasnt accident related.  She does have legal cover on her insurance.

 


What can she do about this? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey.
Thanks for your quick response.

 

He seems to use plastic crates to hold down waste from the shop (as seen in the pics).


The pram, is the easy thing to replace, however the advice on car seats is always never buy used as you never know if there is accident damage on it.

 

What sort of things would i need to consider to prove he was negligent?

 

My approach opinion would be very different if the fence had blown out, but with this, it is ridiculous that he hasn't held things that will catch air, even when previously warned.  The added crazy thing is, my partner had parked her car there literally 10 mins before, and taken both the kids out of the back who could have been sprayed with the glass.
 

Doc2.docx

Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, BankFodder said:

I'm going to come in with a different view here.

An occupier of land is, on the face of it, liable for any damage which is caused by anything that they bring onto their land for their own purposes and which they they keep on their land and which escapes from that land and causes harm.
This liability is strict and that means that such tests as foreseeability or negligence/carelessness are not necessary.

....

 

Thanks, i understand your point, and hope this is how it works out.
Basically, the £300 car seat, and the Pram seat (another £1500) are now unusable because we cant get the fine shards /dust of glass out.

We contacted the legal cover, they said they can try to pursue if I can get the insurance details.  If not, i will definitely take the court action route and see what progresses.


Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...