Jump to content
We are now - The National Consumer Service ×


  • Tweets

    No tweets were found.

  • Posts

    • Is this the correct email to send WS to the courts? I was sure there was a thread here with updated emails. [email protected] Thanks again Andy
    • Thanks again Andy. I have used the following. Not 100% sure on it as it's a bit technical for me. But hopefully shines a light on the points I want to enforce of the 'Full and final' settlement.   Exhibit 2: (relevant extracts used).   URL:https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2001/8.html Cite as: [2001] 1 All ER 961, [2001] ICR 337, [2001] 2 WLR 735, [2002] AC 251, [2002] 1 AC 251, [2001] Emp LR 359, [2001] IRLR 292, [2001] UKHL 8   Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v. Munawar Ali, Sultana Runi Khan and Others [2001] UKHL 8; [2001] 1 All ER 961; [2001] 2 WLR 735 (1st March, 2001) HOUSE OF LORDS Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL SA (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) (APPELLANTS) v. (1) MUNAWAR ALI (2) SULTANA RUNI KHAN AND OTHERS (RESPONDENTS) ON 1 MARCH 2001 [2001] UKHL 8   LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD 22. This appeal raises a question of interpretation of a general release. By a general release I mean an agreement containing widely drawn general words releasing all claims one party may have against the other. The release given by Mr Naeem was of this character. Mr Naeem accepted a payment from BCCI 'in full and final settlement of all or any claims . . . of whatsoever nature that exist or may exist'. LORD HOFFMANN 38. The language of the document is very wide. The impression it conveys is that the draftsman meant business. He has gone to some trouble to avoid leaving anything out. He uses traditional style: pairs of words like "full and final settlement", "all or any claims", "that exist or may exist" and phrases like "whether under statute, common law or in equity" and "of whatsoever nature". Admittedly, he could have gone further. Tudor Grange Holdings Ltd v Citibank NA [1992] Ch 53, 57 contains an even more elaborate release and I have seen American documents in which the release covers an entire page. But most people in this country would regard this as overkill. The modern English tradition, while still erring on the side of caution, is to avoid the grosser excesses of verbiage and trust to the judges to use common sense to get the message. I think that this tendency should be encouraged. So I think that anyone who was simply reading the document without preconceptions would accept that the draftsman was not leaving deliberate gaps. It does not however follow that the language was to be read completely literally. There may be limitations in scope to be inferred from the background, limitations from context which the draftsman may have thought too obvious to mention. But that is a different matter from saying that he did not use enough words. LORD CLYDE The critical words are: "The applicant agrees to accept the terms set out in the documents attached in full and final settlement of all or any claims whether under statute, common law or in equity of whatsoever nature that exist or may exist and, in particular, all or any claims rights or applications of whatsoever nature that the applicant has or may have or has made or could make in or to the industrial tribunal, except the applicant's rights under the respondent's pension scheme."
    • change 4 options to  a. Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, which this claim is based on. b. Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment. c. Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account and quantify how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. d. Evidence how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.   add in: add a new point 2. (old one now being 3)  2. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.  
    • Use the relevant extracts and refer to both ...you cant just use the URL make it as convenient as possible for a judge to refer to. Yes you can use email for court and claimant but also follow up with hard copies particularly the courts copy.
  • 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
      • 162 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
        • Thanks
        • Like

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I purchased a BMW 1 series, 66 plate for £12,798 (purchased mileage - 56,049, current mileage - 58,057) from Cargiant in July 2021 via cash loan from my bank, soon after I was prompted to top up oil. This message reappeared a few weeks later and I noticed stains on my driveway. Admittedly I was unaware of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and stupidly didn't purchase a warranty, I took it upon myself to have my local BMW main dealer diagnose and rectify the issues.

 

Upon encountering further issues I have advised by the main dealer technician that these repeated issues are not due to general wear and tear, taking into account the vehicle age and mileage I have amassed. The issues were most definitely prevalent when I purchased the vehicle but have manifested as the vehicle has been driven, the vehicle is currently with the dealer and I'm not keen to spend another penny fixing issues that I most definitely haven't caused.

 

For context, the work BMW have undertaken so far:

- Replacement of the timing chain tensioner, under-tray, rocker cover gasket and all ancillary components, oil pressure switch, two spark plugs, one fuel injector and wiring harness.

 

I'm keen to reject the vehicle on the basis that under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the vehicle should have been of satisfactory quality. As I believe my rights have been breached because the vehicle I purchased is/was faulty at the time of purchase. Another remedy I'd consider is a full reimbursement of the repair costs I've incurred. I intend to serve Cargiant with a formal notice of compliant requesting a response within 14 days. I'm 100% sure Cargiant will be requesting an independent technical report as my purchase falls outside of the 6 month window.

 

I've also taken legal advice and have been told based on the opinion shared by the main dealer technician and eventual findings of the technical assessment (which I'm sure Cargiant will request), I'd be in a good position to begin litigation proceedings to recover costs if Cargiant reject my claim, a process I'd like to avoid.

 

Questions

1. Should I arrange a technical assessment before serving Cargiant with the notice? 

2. Should I share invoices of the repairs I've incurred or wait till these have been requested?

3. What else do I need to consider

 

Any further advice would be great, thanks in advance.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

outside of 30 days its not your choice but the retailer to choose repair/refund/replace under cra 2015.

warranties are not worth the paper they are written on and would not have been for 12mts anyway..

 

are there any issues not repaired yet?

 

 

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Appreciate the response.
 

Received another error so took the vehicle back to the dealer, they have said the new issue isn’t in relation to any of previous repairs carried out. 
 

They have replaced two spark plugs, engine still misfiring so now want to replace wiring harness and fuel injector. So to answer your question there’s some issues still not repaired. 

Edited by seekingjustice101
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO you are going to have a hard time here, even with these new issues, as a misfire is something you would have been aware of from the get go, not that its now just failing with such. you would not have driven around with it misfiring for a year.

 

should it be doing it after just a year... no, could they claim W&T after 10mts and xxx miles? , they could. 

 

id p'haps write a nice letter to the dealership WITH invoices saying i have already since ownership spent £xxx on this car with a list of error even BMW say themselves, were most probably present at point of sale (report enclosed) . now have XXX further issues that have developed.

 

i am not happy with the car and wish you to repair the outstanding issues under the consumer rights act, and consider reimbursing me for the repairs i have already paid for as at the time i was not aware of my consumer rights.

 

 

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The oil leak was the first issue I was made aware of, the misfire was diagnosed in the last week. The technician believes oil from the initial leak has most definitely contributed to the misfire and associated issues, which I’ll stress to the dealer. Highly doubt I’ll be able to reject the vehicle but some form of reimbursement would be a fair resolution IMO. 
 

Nonetheless, I understand your point and I’ll reach out to the retailer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...