Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Petition regarding charging order bankruptcy thresholds


Old Cogger
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3759 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

  • 3 weeks later...

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/48464

 

 

 

We call on the government to stick to the original promise to raise the threshold of Charging Orders (CO's) to £25,000. Justice Minister Helen Grant reckons by increasing the threshold it would lead to more Bankruptcy (BR) petitions being presented so we also call on the BR threshold to be raised to £25,000 as well.

 

The problem we have is that allowing DCA's to go for a charge on an unsecured debt is tantamount to mis-selling as all unsecured credit must therefore come with a warning that it could become secured and thus you could be in a much worse financial position. Additionally, higher APR's for unsecured lending should be abolished as all lending would technically become secured meaning lower rates should be offered across the board.

 

 

 

 

is this the one, Mike ?

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

I have been looking at this issue recently. Could one of our legal friends look at Part 2 of the UFTR 2008 Prohibitions (6)misleading omissions which are an offence under Part 3 (12).

 

 

As I read it any trader that omits anything from a contract that would otherwise cause a reasonable person not to make a transaction, commits an offence. So it would be reasonable to assume that if you took out an unsecured loan your home would [not be at risk) by way of a bankruptcy petition/charging order. from the creditor should you be unable to keep up the payments on the said loan.

 

 

Quite clearly no reasonable person would contemplate such an action in light of the much higher rates charged for so called unsecured loans and the risks therein. This is the test of reasonableness as per the act (more or less, please read if you are unsure.)

 

 

Since the OFT is responsible for enforcing the act, they should be the first port of call. They after all insist that loan companies et alia should state " Your Home is at risk if you don't keep up payments on a loan secured on it" I think a complaint by every person affected by this should be sent to the DG of the OFT. Lets not be fobbed of to use the local trading standards as they are hopeless and no little of the legislation ( in my experience ) and are any way understaffed.

 

 

This needs to be done by April next year when the local bods take over. Unfortunately the terms of the act do not provide for recession of the contract.

 

 

Remember the OFT must act since there is an alleged offence.

 

 

This might also provide grounds for an action under CCA 1974 sec 140 Unfair relationships ( cheaper fee by way of an application). Please note, as you might of guessed I am a barrack room lawyer, not a real one. Regards Pavi

Edited by citizenB
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been looking at this issue recently.

 

 

Could one of our legal friends look at Part 2 of the UFTR 2008 Prohibitions (6)misleading omissions which are an offence under Part 3 (12).

 

 

As I read it any trader that omits anything from a contract that would otherwise cause a reasonable person not to make a transaction, commits an offence. So it would be reasonable to assume that if you took out an unsecured loan your home would [not be at risk) by way of a bankruptcy petition/charging order. from the creditor should you be unable to keep up the payments on the said loan.

 

 

Quite clearly no reasonable person would contemplate such an action in light of the much higher rates charged for so called unsecured loans and the risks therein. This is the test of reasonableness as per the act (more or less, please read if you are unsure.) Since the OFT is responsible for enforcing the act, they should be the first port of call. They after all insist that loan companies et alia should state " Your Home is at risk if you don't keep up payments on a loan secured on it" I think a complaint by every person affected by this should be sent to the DG of the OFT.

 

 

Lets not be fobbed of to use the local trading standards as they are hopeless and no little of the legislation ( in my experience ) and are any way understaffed. This needs to be done by April next year when the local bods take over. Unfortunately the terms of the act do not provide for recession of the contract. Remember the OFT must act since there is an alleged offence.

 

 

This might also provide grounds for an action under CCA 1974 sec 140 Unfair relationships ( cheaper fee by way of an application).

 

 

Please note, as you might of guessed I am a barrack room lawyer, not a real one. Regards Pavi

 

could when posting show as paragraphs?

Edited by citizenB
:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

popped in some paragraphs :)

 

 

Pavi, this has always been my argument.. At no point are consumers advised that creditors can, regardless of the fact that the loan is unsecured and they charge higher interest rates to cover that risk, that credit cards/unsecured loans can eventually be made "secured".

 

 

No one actually enters into a credit agreement believing they are not going to be able to pay because of circumstances.. but I am sure they would certainly have thought twice about doing so if they believed their home was at risk.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...