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

Gestures Of Goodwill: What's The Deal?


crfx250
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6239 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

Gestures Of Goodwill: Whats The Deal?

I 've got a court date next month with Barclays and expect at some point

to be offered full settlement as a 'gesture of goodwill'. I made my mind up

a long time ago not to accept settlement on these terms as the claim is

made on the basis of the return of unfair and unlawful charges, and that's

what I want back. Also I refuse to be patronised and demeaned by being

bought off to allow the bank to continue to rifle my account at will.

 

The chances are the judge will deem me a vexacious litigant and award

the bank costs but frankly I don't give a monkies. If there's a 1 percent

chance the court agrees, thats good enough.

 

What is the definitive reason (reasons) for banks to settle in this way and

has anyone actually had a 'refund of their charges'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The money just is'nt the issue. Like I say I don't believe a gesture of good will settle's my claim. The charges are unfair and unlawful. I know it, the court knows it and so does the bank. If it ca'nt be recognised as such then I'm not interested. With the greatest of respect I'm not asking anyone to get it. I'ts just the way I see things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Bookworm, I thought contributors to this site had the freedom to

express their views and beliefs. I also think that they should be able to do this without sarcastic and belittling remarks from moderators.

 

My thread and post were entirely polite and made in good faith. Your responses were out of order.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I ask for your opinion? No

 

Did I make it clear your opinion was'nt sought? Yes

 

Were you unreasonabley rude and discourteous? No question about it.

 

Will my claim have a negative effect on others? Why should it?

 

And just who was it that offered a ton of money to bail out an action on behalf of this site for no other reason than furthering the cause of other claiments?

 

And just to remind you, again, I have an absolute right to deal with my claim as I see fit. Just use a bit of basic manners and remember that the opinions of others are just as valid as yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I rather doubt you would would have answered similarly as I'm sure your reply would have been free of arrogance and insults.

 

My view is that accepting a conditional settlement would'nt constitute a victory but merely re-establish the status quo. I'd rather go down fighting

and feel at ease with myself that I did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record my original post set out my circumstances and asked the question ''What is the definitive reason (reasons) for banks to settle in this way and has anyone actually had a 'refund of their charges?''

 

Bookworm did'nt answer the question but instead gave his/her opinion on my circustances in a less tham respectfull way. I have no doubt that Bookworm's advice on procedure and legal issues is excelent and have helped numerous claiments. I don't see things in purely in legal terms.

I just want some natural justice.

 

The particular claim is for a relatively small proportion of charges I'm claiming which I'm yet to file.

 

I don't see myself as a martyr, just some bloke who wants what he thinks is right. If the court don't see it that way then it's tough but at least I would feel easy knowing I tried and went down fighting.

 

It aint no big deal

Link to post
Share on other sites

but if you read again re bookworm in court. it was for confidentiality clause which she wasnt prepared to sign, she wasnt arguing over the settlement.

 

I'm not arguing over the settlement, just the terms of it, just like Bookworm it appears

except another aspect of it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Change your claim to include a declaration :D

 

 

One thing at a time. There are more claims in the pipeline.

 

Dirty Harry: I've never had a problem with Nattie myself.

 

I'm jibbing out of this thread. Thanks for those who supported

me. And the rep points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...