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

Lula v Abbey ***WON***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6457 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

UPDATE!!!!

 

Received this morning the Notice of Issue and they are saying that the Claim will be deemed issued on the 16th august and that they have until the 30th August to reply.

 

 

ooooo exciting stuff

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 229
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Morning

 

Just thought I'd let you know that I am at exactly the same stage - received notice of issue this morning and claim deemed to be served on the 16th - similar amount too.....£5k all but pennies

 

Be watching your thread with interest - wonder if by the time DLA get involved if there'll be different approaches

 

Good Luck

 

L

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning ellemmjay :-)

 

It will be interesting to see if we get the same trainee solicitor, you can almost feel sorry for the poor beggers NOT!! LOL Yes I shall keep an eye on your thread to see what is happening with you

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I feel really stupid asking this, but how will i know if they acknowledge the claim? and do they have 14 days from the date of the acknowledgement or extra from the end of the 14 day period from deemed service? (yeah I know I should know this but the info must be lost somewhere along with my tether :-))

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you log into mcol, where your currently shows "issued", you will see "acknowledged".

And yes, it is 28 days from the date of Service once they do acknowledge.

Abbey Prelim Letter sent 16/06/06 - LBA sent 30/06/06 - MCOL served 22/07/06 - Acknowledged 26/07/06 - Defended 16/08/2006 - Settled 20/09/06 :o

Abbey 2 Prelim Letter sent 22/09/06

Abbey 2 LBA sent 9/10/06

MCOL 03/11/06

Cap One Prelim sent 28/06/06 - LBA sent 13/07/06

MCOL served 05/08/06 - Acknowledged 02/08/06 - Served 05/08/2006 -Settled in full 22/08/06 :D :D

Halifax Prelim sent 03/07/06 - LBA sent 17/07/06

MCOL issued 03/08/06 - settled in full 09/08/06 :D

MBNA S.A.R sent 21/08/06 Settled 21/09/06 :-o

Morgan Stanley S.A.R sent 29/09/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question!

 

Does anyone know where it says that you can only claim for 6 years worth of bank charges?

 

Many thanks

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah baby!!!

 

If I could claim for 1995 to 1999 I think it would be the same amount if not more :-) due to bastid ex husband and non payment of maintenance

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just wondering if there was any particular piece of legislation barring me from trying because I know that the banks will try and deny my claim, I cant find anything although i have to admit that I havnt tried very hard :-)

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Morning folks, just checked my abbey account and nothing has been added, obviously after 20 years as a customer I obviously dont qualify for these goodwill gestures that are being handed out hand over fist, also just checked mcol and they have yet to acknowledge, they have until midnight tomorrow. Am I right in thinking it would be better for them to acknowledge as it would be quicker than going through the set aside malarky?

 

hacked off of Stevenage!!

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Crusher, :-)

 

I know how hard it must have been for you do make a post without BAH HUMBUG!!! in it

 

ROFL

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

actually I first made my statement request on 5th May so that is, nearly 4 months :-(

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question!

 

Does anyone know where it says that you can only claim for 6 years worth of bank charges?

 

Many thanks

 

hi there

 

Most of my claims include an element that is older than the 6 years.

 

The limitations act has provision in it that allows for claims wihtout limitation if you can show they concealed the nature of these charges, or made a mistake or ommission i think it is. Its Sec 32 plus subsections.

 

Basically if the concealed the fact the charges were unlawful then the limitations act doesnt apply.

 

JonChris posted something about the 'knowledge' necessary for them to have been considered as concealing the facts.

 

Basically if my reading of it is right then its simply concealment if they ever thought the charges might be unlawful, even if at the time they dismissed that as unklikley.

 

Couple this to the fact that the OFT investigation went on for around 2 years, the OFT then published a report in Apr 06, all of which calls into question the fact that in fact the unlawfulness of the charges was concealed from their client base.

 

As much as the OFT were investigating CC companies i would be surprised if a banks reprasentative would stand up in court and say they didnt know about the investigation prior to the publication of the report in Apr 2006.

 

Seems to me that believing they concealed the true nature of their charges is not the difficult bit, proving it in court is as always about preperation and presentation of the arguments is the difficult bit.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

 

PS im going to try anyway.

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had my acknowledgement through today, they intend to defend all the claim and ihave a paralegal called Paul Denham

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...