Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Post #415 you said you were unable to sell it yourself. Earlier I believe you said there had been expressions of interest, but only if the buyer could acquire the freehold title. I wonder if the situation with the existing freeholders is such that the property is really unattractive, in ways possibly not obvious to someone who also has an interest in and acts for the freeholders.
    • i dont think the reason why the defendant lost the case means anything at all in that case. it was a classic judge lottery example.
    • Hello, I will try to outline everything clearly. I am a British citizen and I live in Luxembourg (I think this may be relevant for potential claims). I hired a car from Heathrow in March for a 3-day visit to family in the UK. I was "upgraded" to an EV (Polestar 2). I had a 250-mile journey to my family's address. Upon attempting to charge the vehicle, there was a red error message on the dashboard, saying "Charging error". I attempted to charge at roughly 10 different locations and got the same error message. Sometimes there was also an error message on the charging station screen. The Hertz 0800 assistance/breakdown number provided on the set of keys did not work with non-UK mobiles. I googled and found a bunch of other numbers, none of which were normal geographical ones, and none of which worked from my Luxembourg mobile. It was getting late and I was very short on charge. Also, there was no USB socket in the car, so my phone ran out of battery, so I was unable to look for further help online. It became clear that I would not reach my destination (rural Devon), so I had no choice but to find a roadside hotel in Exeter and then go to the nearest Hertz branch the following day on my remaining 10 miles of charge. Of course, as soon as the Hertz employee in Exeter plugged it into their own charger, the charging worked immediately. I have driven EVs before, I know how to charge them, and it definitely did not work at about 10 different chargers between London and Exeter. I took photos on each occasion. Luckily they had another vehicle available and transferred me onto it. It was an identical Polestar 2 to the original car. 2 minutes down the road, to test it, I went to a charger and it worked immediately. I also charged with zero issues at 2 other chargers before returning the vehicle. I think this shows that it was a charging fault with the first car and not my inability to do it properly. I wrote to Hertz, sending the hotel, dinner, breakfast and hotel parking receipt and asking for a refund of these expenses caused by the charging failure in the original car. They replied saying they "could not issue a refund" and they issued me with a voucher for 50 US dollars to use within the next year. Obviously I have no real proof that the charging didn't work. My guess is they will say that the photos don't prove that I was charging correctly, just that it shows an error message and a picture of a charger plugged into a car, without being able to see the detail. Could you advise whether I have a case to go further? I am not after a refund or compensation, I just want my £200 back that I had to spend on expenses. I think I have two possibilities (or maybe one - see below). It looks like the UK is still part of the European Consumer Centre scheme:  File a complaint with ECC Luxembourg | ECC-Net digital forms ECCWEBFORMS.EU   Would this be a good point to start from? Alternatively, the gov.uk money claims service. But the big caveat is you need a "postal address in the UK". In practice, do I have to have my primary residence in the UK, or can I use e.g. a family member's address, presumably just as an address for service, where they can forward me any relevant mail? Do they check that the claimant genuinely lives in the UK? "Postal address" is not the same as "Residence" - anyone can get a postal address in the UK without living there. But I don't want to cheat the system or have a claim denied because of it. TIA for any help!  
    • Sars request sent on 16th March and also sent a complaint separately to Studio. Have received no response. Both letters were received and signed for.  I was also told by the financial ombudsman that studio were investigating but I've also had no response to that either.  The only thing Studio have sent me is a default notice.  Any ideas of what I can do from here please 
    • Thanks Bank - I shall tweak my draft and repost. And here's today's ridiculous email from the P2G 'Claims Dept' Good Morning,  Thank you for you email. Unfortunately we would be unable to pay the amount advised in your previous email.  When you placed the order, you were asked for the value of your parcel, you stated that the value was £265.00. At this stage the booking advised that you were covered to £20.00 and to enhance this to £260.00 you could pay an extra £13.99 + VAT to fully cover your item for loss or damage during transit, you declined to fully cover your item.  Towards the end of your booking on the confirmation page, you were then offered to take cover again, to which you declined again.  Unfortunately, we would be unable to offer you an enhanced payment on this occasion.  If I can assist further, please do let me know.  Kindest Regards Claims Team and my response Good Afternoon  Do you not understand the court cases of PENCHEV v P2G (225MC852) and SMIRNOVS v P2G (27MC729)? In both cases it was held by the courts that there was no need for additional ‘cover’ or ‘protection’ (or whatever you wish to call it) on top of the standard delivery charge, and P2G were required to pay up in full for both cases, which by then also included court costs and interest. I shall be including copies of both those judgements in the bundle I submit to the court next Wednesday 1 May, unless you settle my claim (£274.10) in full before then. Tick tock…..    
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Consumer Credit (rebates on early settlement) regulations


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5893 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

Hi,

Took out a loan in Aug 2005.

Have asked for early settlement figure.

They've quoted Consumer Credit(Rebate on early settlement) regulations 1983..

 

Does this loan fall under the 1983 regs? I think I read somewhere that loans prior to may 2005 were covered by 1983 regs.

 

When do 2004 regs come into effect?

 

What are the differences in the working out of settlement figures?

 

1983 v 2004 regs which is better financialy for the consumer.

 

hope that all makes sense .....:?

 

Sharpman

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2004 regs came into effect for credit agreements written after 31/5/2005.

 

The differences in calculations are based on a requirement to move from the old and complicated Rule of 78 method to a new and even more complicated actuarial method.

 

The bottom line is though that it is generally better for the customer, although I don't think there is that much in it.

 

Search google for OFT801 for more information.

 

HTH

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2004 regs came into effect for credit agreements written after 31/5/2005.

 

The differences in calculations are based on a requirement to move from the old and complicated Rule of 78 method to a new and even more complicated actuarial method.

 

The bottom line is though that it is generally better for the customer, although I don't think there is that much in it.

 

Search google for OFT801 for more information.

 

HTH

 

thanks for info.

BTW the loan was for a figure of 33612.30 (including PPI):sad:

 

So, as this loan was taken out Aug 2005 it's covered by the 2004 regs.

Do the company then have to use the 2004 regs to work out the settlement figure?

 

another question.

On my CCA in the Bit about early settlement it states that the figure would be worked out using formula set out in the CCA 1974. quote 'Not withstanding the fact that this agreement is not regulated by the act' unquote. What does this mean.

 

Also i'm looking at the loan pack again.

 

In the pack it states that the Settlement figure is calculated according to the 'Consumer credit(Early Rettlement) Regulations 2004.

 

On the Loan greement it quotes Consumer Credit Act 1974 for figure calculations.

 

On a recent Settlement Figure quote:

The Rebate allowed has been calculated in accordance with the 'Consumer credit(Rebate on Early Settlement) regulations 1983.

 

Ok, Now which one is legal? or are they all allowed to be used when the occasion suits them.:rolleyes:

 

Sharpman

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

On loans taken out from 31/5/05 they must use the 2004 regulations to work out the settlement figure. A copy of the regs is here The Consumer Credit (Early Settlement) Regulations 2004 No. 1483

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rule of 78 was abolished because it front loaded the interest and so if you made an early settlement you often found that you had a large amount of capital still to pay.

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On loans taken out from 31/5/05 they must use the 2004 regulations to work out the settlement figure. A copy of the regs is here The Consumer Credit (Early Settlement) Regulations 2004 No. 1483

 

Hi,

Ok, Does the 2004 regs regulate loans over £25000. I think CCA 74 only regulates loans for less than £25000 from what I can make out.

 

If so, are there any strongly worded letters on here to enlighten Firstplus of the error of their ways.

 

Sharpman

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it would only regulate loans under £25000 unless it was consolidating credit that was already regulated by the Act.

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
The rule of 78 was abolished because it front loaded the interest and so if you made an early settlement you often found that you had a large amount of capital still to pay.

 

so a doorstep lender could lend £100, load the interest making it £150 for arguments sake and start taking payment weekly, graduallly reducing down from £150? I am assuming this is what front loading means, if so, why are Provident doing this if it is was abolished?

 

how do they work out early settlement since their int rate is about double!!

'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, could that calculation be any more complicated! are there any calculator tools that will do it for you?

'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, could that calculation be any more complicated! are there any calculator tools that will do it for you?

 

Info thread here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/128765-settlement-figures-calculator.html

 

it's a calculator that is on the OFT website. It works out all sorts.

 

Sharpman

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...