Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
stayed. dead at present. if it remains that way for months then could cost the claimant £100's more in fees to lift the stay. dx -
Student banking deals are ramping up as banks fight for university-bound customers.View the full article -
The only thing that could be a problem is the PO Box, I sent the letter to the address without the PO Box, the reply I received didn't mention the LOC just a follow up to my first complaint email. What I might do is resend the SAR to the PO Box as well so they can't say they haven't received it. -
By BankFodder · Posted
No problem about establishing a breach of contract and on the basis they have said that it was a computer error, no problem about establishing inaccurate data processing. Probably worth waiting until the SAR just to see what it brings and any more evidence. So, if they failed to make the disclosure by the 30-day time limit then that gives you an extra basis for an action . You could start the action now or you could wait until 30 days. I suggest that you wait. I suggest that you make a diary note for 31 days -
Thank you They have initiated a refund of the £56 for the trip (which still hasn't been credited). This is all they are prepared to offer plus a £100 voucher for use on their experiences (which we don't want) This still leaves us out of pocket for the parking £15.35, and the 2 x Dart charge £5. As well as the travel to Southend instead of the Queenborough. The extra travel was in total 3.5 hours. I have spent around 2 hours writing letters, email etc. The tickets were purchased for myself and my wife. We haven't received anything from the SAR at the moment. In their email they have admitted an 'admin error' so would that count as a breach of contract? So in total Tickets: £56 Parking: £15.36 Dart Charge: £5 Distress & Travel: £150 Total: £226.36 Minus refund being processed of £56 leaves: £170.36 The refund of the tickets has now been credited to my credit card.
-
-
Our picks
-
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.-
- 1 reply
-
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Big Motoring World,
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
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
- 162 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
We are now - The National Consumer Service
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.