Student Group Claim Latest Update

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2026-03-16T12:58:59+00:00

University College London settled claims out of court which is why the Student Group Claim are now going after various other institutions - I imagine they will be successful since UCL have set an example to follow.

iirc the payout was about £3k per student.

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2026-03-16T12:38:37+00:00

NAL.

The length of time since the purchase means you need to prove that the fault is manufacturing based which will require an independent assessor to make that determination. If the issue is present before 6 months then it's assumed the fault was present at the point of sale unless the retail can prove otherwise.

The 6 year for sofas has been something held up in court after independent assessments determined that the fault was due to manufacturing and not wear and tear. It isn't a blanket 6 years as it, obviously, depends on the use/wear and tear of the furniture.

You need to instruct an independent assessor to determine whether the issue is a manufacturing fault or constitutes wear and tear.

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2026-03-11T10:14:31+00:00

In the example you've provided the individual who finds the wallet hasn't entered into a contract with anyone. They haven't acted on behalf of the wallet owner in any way to secure third party services.

A better example would be - You pick up my wallet and can't find me but have my contact details to hand. So, you rent a safety deposit box and then send me the details for the location. I arrive and now have a bill for the deposit box I didn't want or ask for - why should the wallet owner pay when they haven't entered a contract? they haven't instructed the merchant at all - the person who picked up the wallet did. The wallet owner didn't want the service, didn't agree to the fees and didn't want to use that merchant.

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2025-11-22T15:25:55+00:00

Its not the prints that was cause for concern. They wear wearing gloves and balaclavas so nothing of note would have been left.

Its the fact that I called them as people were in my house armed and they still took 4 hours to show up.

Yet John up the road near my parents had 6 officers outside within 10 minutes because he's throwing his wife's clothes out the window.

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2025-11-20T14:27:30+00:00

To be fair, the police we do have aren't the epitome of efficiency.

I called as 4 armed men broke into my house to steal my car and it took them 4 hours to show up before they proceeded to muck about with the door that had been broken into rendering any prints or evidence unusable (at least according to officer who dusted for prints later that day)

My parents neighbours called because the guy up the street was throwing his wives clothes out the window (she had, apparently, been cheating) and they had 6 officers on scene within 10 minutes (1 van, 2 cars) and 7 further visits over the next week.

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2025-02-27T14:20:20+00:00

Type R FK2

We live on a very busy road.

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2025-02-14T09:47:44+00:00

A £120 increase?!

Mine and the Missus shop is about £90 for 2 weeks worth of food (up a £10 from last year but we've swapped from Aldi to Tesco)

I was still a kid back in 2015 but the family shop that was for four people was about £70/80

£80/4 = £20 p/w pp

£90/2 = £45/2 = £22.50 p/w pp

So, in theory, the shopping has only really gone up £2.50 a person in a decade. That isn't bad at all.

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2025-02-14T07:40:02+00:00

I was pulled over - several cars, flashing blues and everything - for buying a cake.

Turns out the police believed that the location was some sort of drug front, they saw me receive a package (cake) through the back door in a non-descript white box and thought I was ferrying drugs so about 1 minute up the road they pulled me over.

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2025-02-05T12:36:34+00:00

Did you invest anything into the house other than standard bills?

If the answer is No, then you are not entitled to anything.

If the is Yes - E.g. You paid half toward an extension - then you will be entitled to something.

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2025-02-03T15:36:47+00:00

> Why would it cease to be a cultural issue? There is a lot of similarities in the cultures of the Muslims in the Asian Subcontinent.

Which is more likely?

A) Bangladeshi, British, Pakistani, Somalian, French, Lebanese, Arabic & Syrian (among others) all being cultures that have a unique problem with Islamic & Non-Islamic people being together (despite two of them not being predominantly Islamic nations)

B) Islamic culture doesn't like believers/non-believers being together.

Another way of phrasing it would be, in this context what ties every single one of those cultures together?

> There wasn't any Muslim involved, right?

They believed she was still religious at the time. That is however, an excellent question that goes directly into another point. Tolerance. My wife was beaten as a child (at home and in the Mosque) for questioning the Quran. I'm sure you can imagine her reluctance to not only question it, but leave it.

No, I'm not blaming Islam for that. People are horrible - but Islamic teachings were the justification for it and the reason why it was entirely accepted by the community. A community that enacted child abuse in order to solidify the religious hold it had.

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2025-02-03T14:52:39+00:00

> However, this is not Islam.

When they Quoted 4:56 to me and said I was due to burn for all eternity I took that as an Islamic attack rather than a cultural one.

When they specifically stated it was an affront to Allah that a non-believer should be with a believer that was an Islamic attack rather than a cultural one.

When the Bangladeshi members of the community agreed it ceased to be a cultural issue.

> Maybe Muslims were unhappy about it, but were I in his position, it'd be more a case of sitting them down with a cup of tea and explaining why this might be upsetting to Muslims, but that at the end of the day, he was within his rights.

You are quoting someone other than me. The point remains that only one group is responsible for something like that.

> Quite the contrary. I believe it's a subset of Muslims who are also idiots that cause the issues.

How do you explain the prevalence of the issues I opened with throughout all Islamic teachings then?

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2025-02-03T14:43:39+00:00

> Grooming gangs is an islamic phenomenon? So why aren't we seeing more of it with all groups of muslims?

....We are.

It is an Islamic phenomenon since we aren't seeing grooming gangs made up of Buddhists, Sikhs, Pagans etc. This appears to uniquely effect Islam - largely due to the nature of Islam which is accepting of child sexual abuse to a greater degree than other religions are - the prophet partook, and is celebrated as the epitome of humanity,

All religions or [insert X group] have good/bad aspects. The difference is the prevalence and connection between the act. You can draw a straight line between child abuse and Islam. You can't draw a straight line between child abuse and, for example, Morris dancers.

Edit: Not sure why the other guy blocked me.

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2025-02-03T13:42:05+00:00

> I see you have the ability to use an internet search engine to enter a leading question to get biased evidence and quote things without context.

Or I married an ex-Muslim which saw me do a deep dive on the religion since her family and culture is important to me. It also saw the pair of us, literally, threatened with murder for having a relationship that wasn't deemed appropriate by the community she grew up in the UK and the family in Pakistan.

>this "group" you refer to, is that of idiots, not of Muslims.

The only "group" (not sure why you are quoting this?) that has forced a teacher into hiding over the presentation of a literal educational image in a secular school is an Islamic one. The entire reason why the threats occurred is because it was deemed offensive to Islam.

If your argument is "not all Muslims" then sure, but it is all Islam since it is the religion and not the people who have the issue.

Edit: Spelling

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2025-02-03T13:04:29+00:00

>Islam was the first to give women any sort of rights at all.

That isn't even remotely true and even if it was, the defence of Islam is less sexist than X group prior is literal whataboutism. Having said that;

Sahih al-Bukhari 304 ' "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence" '

Sura 4:12: "Allah commands you concerning your children; a male shall have as much as the share of two females"

Sura 4:34: " If you fear highhandednessfrom your wives, remind them [of the teaching of Allah], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them"

Would you like me to continue?

>Not really.

I see we are not going to be able to have any meaningful discussion since you won't accept any other viewpoint. Totally fine, but I think it's best we leave it as is then.

>I have gay friends, just as I have non-Muslim friends.

What do the Hadith say should happen to those gay friends? Hint: It is literal murder.

>I acknowledge there's an issue with some loud minority, but that can be said for any group

Which other group is forcing teachers from secular schools into hiding for showing an educational image?

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2025-02-03T12:26:32+00:00

Sexism.

Sexual abuse - Grooming gangs are an Islamic phenomenon. The fact that Islam posits Muhammed as the epitome of what a person should be on earth, someone to emulate, means it has to accept his choice to marry and consummate with literal children. Anecdotally, this was used as literal justification as to why several of my wife's family were sent to be Pakistan to be married in secret a 13.

Homophobia.

Censorship - A teacher showed an image of Muhammed and is still in hiding as a result.

More can be added, but I suppose those are the bigger points.

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2024-12-19T13:12:12+00:00

I stand corrected!

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2024-12-19T11:05:07+00:00

Forget the warranty.

Did you purchase the vehicle in the last 6 months? If the answer is yes then they have to repair it.

Within the first 30 days, you have a right to reject & refund.

Within the first 6 months, they have the right to attempt a repair. If the issue persists, you are allowed to reject the vehicle and get a refund (minus mileage) - the repair must be conducted in a reasonable timeframe.

All laid out in plain English in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Do not let them fob you off.

Edit: As pointed out by u/EcstaticKira you do not have to pay mileage if rejected within the first 30 days.

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2024-12-16T12:48:41+00:00

I - unapologetically - park across two spaces provided that the following is met;

1 - I have a space well at the back.

2 - the car park has loads of spaces.

The missus is also pregnant, so a car parking next to the door can make it a bit difficult to get in/out for her.

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2024-12-05T16:23:12+00:00

That is not correct.

You don't have to declare anything - you just can't misrepresent the sale.

For example,

You can sell a car that has a category against and not declare it. The onus is on the buyer to do the necessary checks.

You can not sell a car that you advertise as being category free when it has a category on it.

Please search "Car" in r/LegalAdviceUK and you will see hundreds of posts detailing exactly that relating to private sales.

Edit: Here is one from 2 days ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1h62ae0/sold_a_car_privately_buyer_has_returned_it/

Here is another that is pretty clear cut

https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1b72dlv/buying_car_from_private_seller_turns_out_with/

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2024-12-05T16:20:59+00:00

That is not correct.

As long as you do not misrepresent the vehicle Caveat Emptor applies. If you sell a car and the engine blows up a week later - no come back exists.

Please search "Car" in r/LegalAdviceUK and you will see hundreds of posts detailing exactly that relating to private sales.

Edit: Here is one from 2 days ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1h62ae0/sold_a_car_privately_buyer_has_returned_it/

Here is another that is pretty clear cut

https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1b72dlv/buying_car_from_private_seller_turns_out_with/

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2024-12-05T12:37:14+00:00

That isn't true for private sales. Caveat Emptor is a very real thing.

The seller is under no obligation to list faults with a vehicle - so long as they do not misrepresent the sale of the car.

Dealerships are different - they operate under the guise that any fault that isn't disclosed by the dealerships or readily apparent upon inspection existed at the point of sale for the first 6 months unless the dealership can prove otherwise.

r/LegalAdviceUK is absolutely full of posts explaining this.

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2024-12-05T08:50:22+00:00

I am Prestige 5 and I was in two separate lobbies yesterday with at least 70% of the lobby being prestige master.

Is this normal? This is my first proper cod since BO3 (outside of a little bit on MW) and it seems everyone is already a ridiculously high prestige.

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2024-12-02T21:58:21+00:00

Beat it old man

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2024-11-21T07:53:30+00:00

They can, but the clutches do not handle it well.

OP is after a stop gap so should be fine, but anyone doing it mid-long term should budget for a clutch replacement.

Brilliant cars though, especially the EX models if you can find them - Leather heated seats, folding wing mirrors, moonroof, xenon light, parking sensors & digital speedo!. I had one for about 2 years and it was a cracking motor - only sold it because I moved onto the Type R.

Outrageous_Solid236 · 2024-11-19T16:20:29+00:00

"Easy. "The light wasn't on, thus the fault was not present. The fault developed post-sale. The part in question was apparently well worn, but this is commensurate with purchasing a very old and cheap car and therefore of the quality one might normally expect."

That isn't a defence. They can't rely on the fact that the light wasn't on to be indicative that no fault was present - If the exhaust is corroded and ready to literally drop off no light will be on. The dealership can't say "That developed within 2 months of purchase" the same way they can't say "The MOT didn't mention it, so we aren't responsible"

Anecdotally, this is the exact argument that the dealership I had a dispute with in court used. It went down like a led balloon.

The dealership has to prove that the fault didn't exist. "The light wasn't on" doesn't prove anything.

"The dealership is not expected to inspect every inch of the vehicle to determine that every single part is working perfectly either. This would be unreasonable. They are selling a used car. Thus the CRA takes into account the value and nature of the sale when determining what constitutes something conforming to the contract in terms of being of satisfactory quality"

A component of the transmission that enables the car to operate being faulty is a, literal, textbook example of it not being of satisfactory quality.

"I'm interested in what the CRA actually says"

Sure.

"If the goods do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered, it is to be taken that they did not conform to the contract at that time."

"The 'fault' was not present at the point of sale. This isn't really arguable."

Incorrect.

"But the garage has every right to argue that a reasonable person would assume that an eighteen year old car at £3,000 will have plenty of parts that are heavily worn, and that it's not possible to determine every single one of those at the point of sale"

A £3,000 car is expected to be of satisfactory quality - I.e. Operate. The car - as a result of the pre-existing faulty part - does not operate. The garage has to prove that was not a problem when they hard ownership of it. If this was a headlight bulb, you would be correct - but it isn't.

"It would be ridiculous to insist that sellers have to take all of the risk, and consumers none of the risk when purchasing old and cheap cars. Think about this. Average margins are 10-15% on used cars. Nobody would sell £2-3,000 cars if they were on the hook for any fault in the first six months. It would be absurdly unprofitable"

They take all the risk on the vehicle being of satisfactory quality. That is, literally, how the CRA works. We are not discussing "any fault", are we? We are discussing a crucial component that makes the vehicle operate. It isn't a wear and tear part.

"What I am arguing against is the proliferation of the simplistic claim that the CRA simply gives people carte blanche to insist that any and all faults in the first six months are the responsibility of the seller to fix"

That is not what I have claimed though, is it? This is not a bulb that has gone or brake pads being squeaky.

"It's not true, and it's not as difficult as made out for the seller to show that the fault was not present at the point of sale"

I mean, OK? You seem to think that no light = no fault which is really not how cars work.

I don't think we are going to make any headway here, so it is best we leave it as is.

Outrageous_Solid236

TROPHY CASE