Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 160 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

Mint Loan CCA - Correct?Default includes PPI


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4899 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

I have been sent this CCA by MINT. Does anyone know if its correct? I have been defaulted and the DCA Unidebt is listing the full amount borrowed less what I had paid. Can the default include the full interest charge and the full PPI premium even after defaulting several years before the end?

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/richie_1892/

Edited by scrambledbyegg
added link
Link to post
Share on other sites

No CCA to be seen :confused:

I do very little but I do it very, very well :cool:

 

If I've helped give my scales a click

:smile:

 

I have no legal experience and all advice given is based on the knowledge I've gained from this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't comment of the other aspects you mention but the actually agreement looks ok to me. Fixed loans seem to be better put together than CCards generally.

 

Hopefully others can stop by to take a look see.

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

They sent a default notice, but when I asked for statement it shows the full load plus PPI and interest for the full term, all payments made are deducted from this total and that is how they get the default amount i.e. default includes PPI and all interest

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Update on this account, I was unsure if the agreement sent was valid so I started paying Moorcroft. It has been passed to Arden now who refuse to negotiate. I have offered a sum and stated quite clearly that I will not send financial information or enter into verbal discussion with them. They continue to refuse the offer and want me to complete a financial statement and call them to discuss the matter. Any ideas on what I do next? My understanding is that only a court can force you to complete a financial statement. Given I have a number of accounts in dispute how would I proceed in doing one, leaving the disputed accounts offer gives the impression I can afford more, yet including them could be taken as admittance of liability?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The arden muppets continue to ask for financial info, am going to send this:

 

Further to your recent correspondence on the above account, as previously stated in my letters xxxx, xxx and the original questionnaire sent by yourselves I confirm that I am not willing to discuss this matter over the telephone. Also as previously stated I am not prepared to divulge sensitive financial information to you or your client.

 

Your reference to continued non-payment is directly due to your company’s attitude and approach, you have failed to accept all reasonable offers. I believe that your actions are contrary to the OFT guidelines on debt collection, and your actions have been noted.

 

Since the alleged sum is of a similar size to another liability I have, I consider it appropriate that the same repayment offer is made to yourselves, that ius £150 pcm. This is lower than previous due to the current financial climate and additional HMRC liabilities.

 

Having now reviewed the alleged CCA sent by MINT, I am of the opinion that a properly executed agreement does not exist with regard to this alleged account, specifically missing prescribed terms and the fact the miss-sold PPI forms part of the agreement and is not separate. This either renders the account void or will as in existing case law result in a “reset” of the agreement and terms, should this matter go to court.

 

I intend to make payment on 18th June should you accept this proposal, if you do not then I will consider payment to MINT directly and inform them of your lack of cooperation and potential violation of the OFT guidelines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

Hi Ive had a look at your credit agreement and must agree that it is unenforceable. The cca 1974 s18 does require that the loan and the ppi insurance should be separate entities. They could not enforce it with a court order under cca 1974 s61 due to the fact that under schedule 6 of the 1983 si regulations repayments are prescribed terms and hence would need two signatures on two separate agreements. The mistake they made is bundling your loan and ppi into one agreement and monthly payment. Hope this has helped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well Mint/RBS rejected my miss-sold PPI claim today despite admitting that is was a single premium policy and that they had no record of my pre-existing medical condition not had they asked about. It was my fault for not reading the terms and conditions! They also rejected any notion that their staff would imply that the loan had more chance of being accepted if I took the PPI. On to the FSA I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well Mint responded with my claim that the agreement was unenforceable since it contained sums for fixed use and some for free use, ie. lump sum premium for PPI (miss-sold in my opinion) and the loan.

mint_MA1_red.pdf

mint_MA2.jpg

mint_MA1.jpg

mint_MA2_red.pdf

Edited by scrambledbyegg
jpedgs replaced with PDFs
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Procede with the PPI. Creditors always decline at the first letter. From what I gather FOS will pretty much always go against the creditor with Single premium policies. Go back at them a bit harder making it clear you'll be going to the FOS. Ive had 4 and they all came back at the second letter in my favour.

Bare in mind if its an old agreement there can be some pretty huge 8% interest coming back aswell.

 

 

As for the other im not sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...