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

I can't believe the banks have not caved in yet


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6276 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

Having just got £740 back from Halifax (£69 short of what I originally asked for) and having to just reject the 1st offer and then do a deal which was acceptable I found that court was not required.

 

Try speaking to them. Say you believe £2.50 is a fair charge and would accept that. I am sure they will settle

BRING ON THE HALIFAX

  • S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) Sent to Halifax PLC Recorded Delivery 21/09/06
  • 12/12/06 Still no S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) details so called and was told they would look at this next week
  • 28/12/06 Horray details recieved
  • Prelim request sent 8/01/07
  • LBA sent 12/01/07
  • Offer letter received 30/01/07
  • Upped Offer of £740 accepted

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Garyhay,

 

I certainly would not tell them that I think that £2.50 is a good price. I want all my money back. Considering the time that they have had my money (sometimes 5 years and more) all the profit that they have made on my money I want the lot.

I also want the interest and costs. This might make me sound greedy but the banks are nothing but robbers. (I really am being very polite here).

 

Eileen

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right the banks have been robbing us for years and if you want to have to file court papers get sheriffs officers etc involved and have the time then I would centainly advise going that route.

 

If I have to start paying £10 per month just to have a bank account then this will cost me the same over the Scottish 5 year claim period and I will never get that back so we have to meet the banks somewhere in the middle and £2.50 is a lot more to our side than the banks £35 charge side.

 

It is really going to need a test case to find out what the actual cost to the banks is but a programme on BBC had 2 experts from within the banking industry claim that £2.50 would be a resonable cost to pass on and I am quite willing to accept this at this moment in time as the sums involved for me were not that large.

 

You also have to take into account that in Scotland we have to jump through hoops to get £1500+ back.

 

If for example you had 100 x £35 charges making a total of £3500 but agreed with the bank to accept 100 x £2.50 charges then you will get back £3250. If you can find a solicitor to take on your case (which you can still loose and have to pay full cost) it will cost you more than £250 and have a lot more risk involved.

 

A cop out maybe accepting a lesser offer but better IMHO for those who can't afford to loose anymore or who originally thought the cash was gone forever anyway.

 

Good luck with your case. Post your thread details up and I will keep an eye on it.

BRING ON THE HALIFAX

  • S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) Sent to Halifax PLC Recorded Delivery 21/09/06
  • 12/12/06 Still no S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) details so called and was told they would look at this next week
  • 28/12/06 Horray details recieved
  • Prelim request sent 8/01/07
  • LBA sent 12/01/07
  • Offer letter received 30/01/07
  • Upped Offer of £740 accepted

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how to go about it yet but as I have no assets and am currently on sickness benefit I can take the risk of losing all and forcing a test case and I am willing to do this with support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Citizen ,

 

The good thing about this site is that someone somewhere has already been through what you are going to go through, so perserve and if you have any questions there is always someone to help.

I done all my claims through Glasgow Sheriff Court and I found them to be really nice. Any problems just ask.

 

Eileen

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...