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

bad head and getting worse round 2 ***WON!***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6157 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 290
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

OK rather than beating this up we need to wait and see EXACTLY what they have supplied.

It could very well be a complete breakdown of how the charges are arrived at, or simply a list of all the charges.

We DON'T know yet.

 

Christina, when you Do get a copy can you please post a scan for all of us to read.

Ta Much.

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

They might have submitted something but it doesn't mean they will have actually complied with the order. I'd find that very hard to believe and it would mean they have disclosed internal costs information which they refused to disclose to the treasury select committee, as well as the OFT initially and also every court in the land at some stage or another.

 

I'd bet that this is just a pathetic token gesture, not much more than merely a schedule of charges, just to keep up the charade for a bit longer. If thats the case then you should complain to the court that they haven't complied and request a strike out just as if they hadn't submitted anything at all.

 

Have you got a scanner? If not can you post me a copy of it when you get it please.

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i know you all think i am being thick and worrying over nothing but i asked her so many times to clarify what had been sent to the court each time in a different wording and everytime she came back to me with the same answer " abreakdown in charges"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, sorry Christina, it does sound like we are all dis-believing you but its not that. The odds on [problem] sending a breakdown of what a charge includes seems not likely especially as they have been asked many times, but you may just be the first, someone has to be! They really cant justify it though so lets not worry too much, lets wait and see what it shows when you get it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well whatever it is there's no point in worrying about it at all - wait until you've seen it first.

 

The order requires them to provide details and a figure for how their charges are calculated. We all know they are automated and cost no more than, say, £1.00 per item, so either; a) they provide an accurate figure - congrats, you win!:D , b) they fabricate something to make their charges appear proportionate - as if, not when it'd have to be verified with a statement of truth!, or c), they don't actually comply at all - just submit a pathetic token gesture - see above.

 

Relax!:)

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the funny thing was the court even said they had replied to the disclosure notice, but never got anything back from them regards to it, i know lloyds wont do anything about it,

as a court date has been set if they havent responded to teh disclosure notice can i still apply for judgement

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go. Fire the first one of these off to Lloyds on Wednesday (or even put it in the post on Tuesday perhaps) with a copy also to the court, then 7 days later send the second one to the court with a copy to SC&M.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/58011-directions-non-compliance-letters.html#post485266

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - GaryH, this is the bit I don't like about the letter mentioned above - giving Lloyds 7 more days! Christinajanep and me are at exactly the same stage, both weds for us. But it's grating with me giving them another 7 days!

 

Fzrkitten.

Fzrkitten

Link to post
Share on other sites

tell me about it, i've had enough already but i guess we have to conduct this properly other wise it'll look real bad on us,

i'm hoping this cant drag on much longer now, we have our court date set for september

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - GaryH, this is the bit I don't like about the letter mentioned above - giving Lloyds 7 more days! Christinajanep and me are at exactly the same stage, both weds for us. But it's grating with me giving them another 7 days!

 

Fzrkitten.

Yours may be slightly different. If you look at Christina's order below, unfortunately it does not have a strike out clause attached in the event a party does not comply.

 

the following directions apply to this claim:-

1) the claimant shall within 14days of service of this order send to the defendent and to teh court:-

 

a. A schedule setting out each chare the claimant seeks to recover showong the date, amount and the reason given for that charge being made.

b. A secure bundle of the copy bank statements or other documents relied upon as showing that each and every charge has been made, with each page of the bundle clearly numbered.

 

c. A statement of evidence of all the matters relied upon as showing that the charges are irrecoverable as penalties or otherwise.

 

d. Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon.

 

2) The defendent shall within 14days thereafter send to the claimant and to the court a response to the claimants schedule stating in respect of each item claimed.

 

a. Pursuant to what contractual provision such charge is accpeted to be a penalty and if not why now,

 

b. whether such a charge is accepted to be a penalty and if not why not

 

c. if such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the defendants loss incurred by the claimants actions whether or not such action is treated as a breach of contract between parties, all facts and matter intended to be relied upon as showing that such was a proper estimate of suchloss and all the evidenceto be adduced at trial as to what the true cost of dealing with the matter was,

 

d. if such charge is not alleged to be a pre-esitmate of the defendants loss incurred by the claimants actionsthen facts and matter intended to be relied uponshowing the basis upon which the charge was calculated and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to show that the charge was fair and reasonable

 

e. any witness statements

Most do have a strike out clause - so check your order. If it says "If the defendant does not comply with this order the defence will be struck out without further order" at the bottom of section 2 then the defence will be struck out. In that case, just send this letter to the court on Wednesday. Do not give an extra 7 days and do not give SC&M prior warning -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/57708-draft-order-allocation-questionnaires.html#post757475

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks GaryH, fantastic. I didn't realise that. I'm at work at mo, not got order with me, but I have a sneaky feeling mine might be same as Christina's unfortunately for us, but I will check as soon as I get home (if!). We are only a town apart, so our orders are quite similar.

 

Thanks again,

 

Fzrkitten.

Fzrkitten

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...