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

Inportant info required


John 1963
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3467 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

have any of you who have a complaint against Swift contacted your MP about them?

 

If so could you please post up here the details of the MP concerned as a lobby group of MP's is trying to be established to try and help Swift customers. The importance cannot be stressed enough, obviously the more MP's involved the more the right people will take notice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

have any of you who have a complaint against Swift contacted your MP about them?

 

If so could you please post up here the details of the MP concerned as a lobby group of MP's is trying to be established to try and help Swift customers. The importance cannot be stressed enough, obviously the more MP's involved the more the right people will take notice.

 

I will pass this info on as I know others have contacted their MP's. Thanks for your post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for that but people please keep them coming this is very important. If we could find 60 you are looking at nearly 10% of the entire commons and that would make them take notice. Even if you have not contacted your MP yet about Swift think about doing so as it will not do your fight any harm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Just thought I would bump this , has there been any development here ?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I contacted mine but she wasn't helpful. I think the total that did write was in single figures, with that response no one is going to take any interest. Swift have got a license to carry on as they wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I have given up totally with any consumer bodies, none are interested or prepared to do anything. My loan was paid off in 2012 or so I thought but because of the charges I now owe £8k, I am now paying them £50 a month which doesn't even cover the monthly interest. Even if I live another 30 years I will still owe over £8k for a £3k loan and by that time they will have had nearly £25k off me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have letters from swift that state that I am within my rights to consider the ombudsmen but being un-regulated the ombudsmen will not be able to do anything. Johns is supposed to be regulated but it seems that swift will still stick their fingers up to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

It was the Ombudsman who made the final decision and he stated swift should refund me £800 in charges. But like I said in the time it took them to reach this conclusion it was costing me £100 a month in interest so I was still worse off and I refused to accept their findings. The FOS adjudicator told me that "it would be highly unlikely that Swift would continue to add charges whilst the FOS were investigating my complaint" this of course was utter rubbish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although they don't take on individual cases please contact the FCA about your experiences. This new regulator seems to have more bottle to deal with companies than others and the more they get to hear about problems with Swift, the more likely they are to deal with them.

 

 

Don't forget that just because you've been to FOS, doesn't mean you can't take Swift to Court.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although they don't take on individual cases please contact the FCA about your experiences. This new regulator seems to have more bottle to deal with companies than others and the more they get to hear about problems with Swift, the more likely they are to deal with them.

 

 

Don't forget that just because you've been to FOS, doesn't mean you can't take Swift to Court.

 

 

 

 

the FCA have been contacted by many people and they are as toothless as the FOS, regards taking Swift to court even if I could afford to no decent barrister is prepared to take them on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the balance of the scales does tip in favour of these unfair agreements we have signed because these types of lenders bottom line is 'you've signed the agreement tough'. It should not be made easy for these types of lenders to be able to threaten repossession and then move onto execute that threat. There should be a mediation system set up to take the case away from the Courts in the first place. This gives the borrower a fair chance, because as it stands, it's these lenders who have the resources to be represented by financial savvy lawyers, not to say barristers. You would think they wouldn't need such force if their product was morally just.

 

We are not expected to be financial experts and do expect transparency and honesty. The powers that be should have put a stop to people being put into this detriment years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the FCA have been contacted by many people and they are as toothless as the FOS, regards taking Swift to court even if I could afford to no decent barrister is prepared to take them on.

 

For me the Jury is still out on the FCA. Once all the interim permissions are sorted then I will be more prepared to pass an opinion. An example is minicredit were givern a minded to revoke by the OFT yet still nothing has happened.

As for the FOS, well in my experience the adjudicator frequently sides with the lender but when passed to the ombudsman things change

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if what I have read and understood about the FCA is true then I wouldn't hold you breath about any outstanding actions brought about by the OFT or FSA. My understanding is that the FCA hasn't got the remit to get involved in historic OFT or FSA case's and aren't able or interested in applying anything or enforcing any existing requirements. It seems to me they want to brush all existing investigations under the carpet and start afresh even though they are staffed by old OFT and FSA staff, I hope I am wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if what I have read and understood about the FCA is true then I wouldn't hold you breath about any outstanding actions brought about by the OFT or FSA. My understanding is that the FCA hasn't got the remit to get involved in historic OFT or FSA case's and aren't able or interested in applying anything or enforcing any existing requirements. It seems to me they want to brush all existing investigations under the carpet and start afresh even though they are staffed by old OFT and FSA staff, I hope I am wrong.

 

That is not what they said to me when I asked why nothing has been done about MMF. They said that when they get round to looking at the interim permissions, all history including OFT censures will be looked at

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should write to the FCA and OFT to express this concern.

 

OFT no longer exists as replaced for some things by fca and others by cma.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not what they said to me when I asked why nothing has been done about MMF. They said that when they get round to looking at the interim permissions, all history including OFT censures will be looked at

Quite correct Fletch, data is collected and will be reviewed when the IP are considered.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

OFT no longer exists as replaced for some things by fca and others by cma.

 

OFT removed from post now to keep post current for readers. I add this link which goes into more detail of the CPMA

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtreasy/430/430vw18.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
OFT removed from post now to keep post current for readers. I add this link which goes into more detail of the CPMA

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtreasy/430/430vw18.htm

 

 

 

I was referring to the CMA as per the link below.

 

 

The Office of Fair Trading was responsible for protecting consumer interests throughout the UK. It closed on 01 April 2014, with its responsibilities passing to a number of different organisations including the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the Financial Conduct Authority.

For advice or help with a consumer problem, contact Citizens Advice.

View the closed OFT site in the UK Government Web Archive.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...