Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Parking Eye ANPR LOC Now claimform - Teanlowe - Booths Poulton Le Fylde

Robert63
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 213 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

Nicky Boy

Nicky Boy

Posted
Posted

I certainly lost the will to live!

 

What stands out to me is the so called "contract" with the land owner.😂

  • I agree 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Robert63
Robert63

Well Friday was our day in court, what a disaster it turned out to be.  First we arrived in lots of time for the 10am kick off and then waited and waited until 1pm before it was our turn in fron

Robert63
Robert63

If my defeat is going to help other people then it's not a total loss.

FTMDave
FTMDave

They claimed the £50 in the PoCs when they were not entitled to it, months before anything was mentioned about LPC Law. So I say to leave everything in about the made-up £50 and all their lame ex

Nicky Boy

Nicky Boy

Posted
Posted

As DX said, because the DQ n180 hasn't been filed on MCOL, the fllecers "Reply To Defence" can't have been filed either.

 

They need to be filed together...

 

CPR15

Reply to defence and defence to counterclaim

15.8  If a claimant files a reply to the defence—

(a)the claimant must—

(i)file the reply with a directions questionnaire; and

(ii)serve the reply on the other parties at the same time as it is filed; and

(b)the reply should form one document with any defence to counterclaim, with the defence to counterclaim following the reply, unless the dates on which they are due to be filed differ from one another.

 

Also, with reference to (b). Does all their crap count as "one document"?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nicky Boy

Nicky Boy

Posted
Posted (edited)

Talk about "muddying the waters".

 

Do we think that this has not actually been filed at court?

If so, might it be an idea to just turn up with it on the day and address it with the judge?

 

 

Edited by Nicky Boy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
Nicky Boy

Nicky Boy

Posted
Posted

A few of my thoughts...


Signage


Page 72 (Sign type 1) Entrance sign?
States, "3 Hour Max Stay", then, "see signage in car park for terms and conditions"... NOT extra terms and conditions or further terms and conditions.
So, "3 hour max stay" is clearly not part of the terms and conditions.

Page 73 (Sign type 2)
Look at this and decide which are the terms and conditions. Personally, I would consider the "separate box" containing the icons are the terms and conditions. This list has it's own box.

Not sure about that one?... Ok, the next one is the BIGGIE!


P 74 (Sign type 3)
No terms and conditions are listed on this sign AT ALL. (I understand that the consumer can choose the most advantageous sign to suit their needs.)

Also, their "signage map" on Page 71 and 72 doesn't differentiate between sign type 2 or 3. So, the driver could be faced with EITHER type 2 OR 3 after parking up.

 

Paragraph 4 of their WS states...  "Terms and Conditions apply in the car park AND there is a maximum stay time".

They've itemised the stay time separately from the T's and C's, indicating that the "max stay time" is NOT part of their list of terms and conditions.

Finally, I see in their POC, similar peculiar wording... "subject to terms and conditions, including a max stay period".
Have they been caught out with this before?

I seem to remember case won by a motorist on a very similar argument.
In that case the wording on the sign was that a parking charge would be applied "if any of the FOLLOWING conditions are not met". Then followed the usual list. Unfortunately for the fleecers, this was all AFTER the first "max stay" part of the sign.

The Judge decided to read the contract literally, as he should do.

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Nicky Boy

Nicky Boy

Posted
Posted

I'm working on a few bits and pieces as suggestions...

I'll add them in red above as I go along.

(Dave might want to re-edit).

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nicky Boy

Nicky Boy

Posted
Posted

Sorry to drag this out fellas...

Section 16: typo
busy man road, (should be "main")

Section 32: typo (Mine!)😳
mentioned, here is NO Planning permission (should be "there")

Section 38: typo
contract is heavily detracted (should be "redacted")

Section 41: suggested rewording
The claimant cannot prove the vehicle was parked
(The claimant has not shown that the vehicle was parked)?

Section 42 suggested addition
The Claimant has no legal representative. They are representing themselves. In fact Samantha Woodhouse states her position simply as "Claims Handler", no legal qualifications are stated at all. This is a clear abuse of the court process.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nicky Boy

Nicky Boy

Posted
Posted

Hmm, not sure about that one.

The claim paperwork still states they are representing themselves.

Any comments guys?

Do we have to remove all of the "Invented Legal Representative's Costs" section?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Nicky Boy

Nicky Boy

Posted
Posted

Just a thought guys...

Should we be concerned at  the attitude of the judge in this case?

Maybe tweak the standard defence to somehow cover all the bases?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nicky Boy

Nicky Boy

Posted
Posted

Just to let you know Robert,

Your own experience and another similar, has led to discussions here. Looks like we may be modifying the standard defence in certain cases, to try and prevent this in the future.

And FYI, our legal experts are of the opinion that your judge overstepped the mark in doing what he did.

The consideration of a WS is part of "due process" and should not have been disallowed.

Anyway, well done for putting up the fight you did!

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...