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

Excel probs - my 8% is not 8%!


strapt
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6299 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

has anyone had any problems with the excel template's calculations of 8% or is there something Ive missed maybe? Im just preparing my excel spreadsheet to include the 8% before i start my MCOL and have noticed that the figure the template calculates is more like 15%. i checked one of my old excel docs from a previous claim with Cap One that went to the MCOL stage and that figure was coming outincorrectly too. I was guessing that I had an error with my ecxel setup so stared a feresh excel using a new template and even the first figure i typed in was clearly not 8% of what I was calculating. Am I going mad or is there something Im missing or messing up here? Any one had any similar probs? thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just tried downloading the excel sample template too and if you look at the calculations on the 8% calculation page it reads at the top Penalty: £1300.00 then 8% on penalties: £291.60. Clearly 291 is not 8% of 1300, is anyone out there able to explain this. I'm guessing I've missed something, probably quite obvious but I can't submit my MCOL with crazy figures on my spreadhseet that I don't understand before sending so need to check what this is all about with everyone. Hope someone can help! Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Strapt,

 

I think you need to change the formula on the spreadsheet. Had all sorts of trouble with the interest thing myself, but I used works ..... not sure about excell, don't use it myself. The 8% equates to 0.00022, this is what should be in the cell on your interest column if I am not mistaken. If it is wrong you need to change it then copy and paste it to the rest of the column (thats what I did anyway - not an expert tho!) Hope that helps!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply ajjars, that sounds like good advice and the obvious thing to do, however I'm looking at the spreadsheet again thinking why would they library section give a template with the wrong formula in it and now one's noticed it so far... with this in mind (bear in mind I'm not spreadsheet expert either) I'm looking at the formulas attatched to the 8% calculation boxes and it has some maths in there that is attatched to the date boxes and there's also a division of 365 in there too. I'm now guessing that 8% is not just a fixed calculation which is how I was thinking, but added up over time too. This would certainly explain some of what I've found and also I doubt this calculation could be there by mistake. Is there someone else out there that can verify that we are not just slapping on a fixed 8% of our charges at the MCOL stage and are infact adding on a figure that is relative to how long the charges have been going on too? What do you think ajjars? Thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...