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


  • Tweets

    No tweets were found.

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Nat West made a claim against me about 2 years ago which dragged on for about 18 months

 

Eventually they discontinued it so therefore I won

 

I wrote to them requesting that the balance be wiped clean and any defaults removed, and received a reply saying they would not do this

 

This reply did not particularly surprise me, but to my horror they have added about 4k on the amount since the court case and laughably say 'they have no record of me disputing the account'

 

I cannot believe they are allowed to do this, any suggestions on what to to?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They made a claim via the county court under the guise 'various monies owed', and I put it in dispute via a cca

 

Really that is about the size of it as they never produced any documents. It managed to drag on for the best part of a year with them coming up with various excuses for not producing it and constantly asking for stays.

 

Eventually I managed to get a hearing, and 24 hours before the hearing they discontinued the claim.

 

I themn wrote to them requesting that any outstanding balances they seemed to think I owed be removed and any default notices also removed.

 

They sent be about 2 or 3 letters saying they were looking into it and then after about 6 months gave me an answer.

 

Not only were they not going to remove any balances, they are continuing to add interest on the original amount , and as I said laughably claiming I have never disputed the amount

 

Can't imagine a court will let them claim again, so can't think what their game is, and more to the point should they be doing it?(adding interest still)

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, so was it a loan you had or a credit card

 

if it was either, failure to comply with a cca request would mean they are not able to add charges while in default of your cca request

 

i would suggest a call to your local trading standards they would be interested i would think

 

Regards

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

if it was either, failure to comply with a cca request would mean they are not able to add charges while in default of your cca request

 

Paul,I know people do say that a lot on the site, but I have never been clear as to the legal basis of such a statement.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi tom

 

my understanding of the CCA 1974 is that when the debt becomes unenforcable by the lenders failure under 77/78 they cannot take any enforcement action, now i have been advised by my tutor that this not only covers Court action but however adding charges.

 

my tutors reasoning was that the right to add charges and interest would come from the provisions of the contract ie the regulated agreement. in the abscence of the regulated agreement what basis would a lender have to administer charges

 

Also, the oft consider it unfair to add charges to an account in dispute.

 

thats my reasoning behind the statement

 

Oh hows the reading going :D

 

regards

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies

 

At most I feel it is unethical to keep adding charges, particularly as they have already tried and failed to enforce it via the court route

 

After all what is to stop a lender dragging out finding an agreement for ages, in order to be able to keep adding interest/charges before any hearing

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...