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

alanfromderby HFC - CCA(1974) Disclosure Offence Committed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5548 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

Sorry, only just come across this. Dealing with the second part of this first, the likelihood of a county court judge accepting such an argument is very remote, as they tend to look at things on a holistic basis. If they feel that someone is trying to get out of a contractual obligation on a technicality, they are generally not very sympathetic.

 

Whilst you may feel you have a legitimate case (and I am not saying you haven't), you do need to be aware of the risks, and I would advise having a good read through the numerous similar cases within the Debt and DCA forums.

 

On the first point, the judge has powers under the CPR to award costs where he feels that a party is proceeding with a case that is unreasonable. This is, of course, a matter of opinion for the individual District Judge.

 

There are also numerous potential costs listed in CPR 27(2) which apply to Small Claims Track, some of which would be applied for by the defendant's solicitors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Alan,

 

No worries about the delay, my case is still proceeding slowly through... I am pursuing two banks, and have one hearing on 20th Dec and am waiting on a date on the other.

 

I do truely appreciate your views and understand your arguements, I just hope any judge will also see the common sense (even Litigant view) where surely a creditor should hold the proof of evidence of the debt until satisfaction. In my two cases both have conveniently now said the debts do not exist and therefore no proof required...shame I have evidence to show otherwise so I (cross fingers) do not expect either to show up in court, but you never know.

 

I would apprecaite it if you could have a read through my Woolwich thread (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/111018-penfold-barclays-woolwich-no.html) and PM me any points I may have missed or your views on it.

 

Thanks,

 

Penfold

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I stumbled upon this thread from a search engine when looking for something else. I "pinched" your letter and used it on an account that Royscot Finance had sold to Wescot. RESULT!! £5200 written off immediately, because they couldn't produce the documents. They gave up without a fight and, to quote their letter to me, "we have closed the account and no more correspondence will be sent to you regarding this matter." I have just sent the same letter to Abbey (£1500) and although they supplied the documents, they can't prove the balance, so it looks like this may go the same way. You people are fantastic!:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 years later...

This topic was closed on 09 March 2019.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5548 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...