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

Citizen Advice: Rent to own survey - do this! tell them how useless RTO companies are!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2753 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

Citizen Advice are asking customers of rent-to-own companies to complete a short survey about your experiences of shopping at BrightHouse, Perfect Home or Buy as You View.

 

Your responses will be used to produce a report about consumer experiences in the rent-to-own market.

 

This report will be used to see whether more can be done to protect consumers such as yourself.

 

https://docs.google.com/a/citizensadvice.org.uk/forms/d/1-exGdFfQaO9CiwOKicwroUQvh5bg0J2F1fCZHJBsL5Q/viewform?edit_requested=true

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

My son moved back home so my wife phoned Dial-A-TV to purchase a TV on a rent-to-own basis. Dial-a-TV were asked by her "will I own the TV after the installments?..Answer "Yes, after 18 months." "How much will the TV cost per month?" Answer " £30.48" So to confirm the "TV will cost £30.48 for 18 months as a rental then after the 18 months I will own the TV" and they said "Yes". The agreement came in the form of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. She signed it and returned it. I only saw it when the problems started!

 

She was telephoned by Dial-A-TV to see if she wanted an upgrade to which she said "NO, and when is the last payment?" and the reply was "August (2016). " 18 payments. This flagged up something to me so I asked her to cancel the final payment on direct debit and that I would pay the final payment by cheque and written in it "FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT FOR GOODS RECEIVED) which I scanned and filed. It was only after the DD was cancelled that Dial-a-TV wrote to say the direct debit had been cancelled and that there were another 39 payments of £35 to be paid for rental.

 

I phoned Dial-a-TV and was met by a tirade of abuse so I hung up and re-dialed and got put through to a manager. Unfortunately a firm like this prey on those who have to use firms like this and don't know their rights! I had said to their manager that their operative had called about a TV upgrade and the question had been asked about final payment. The manager said " the operative would say (in this case August) but that was the minimum term was 18 months so there were 39 further payments owing"

 

Lets look at this: if the question was asked "when is the final payment?" and the answer was "August" then a reasonable person would believe it to be "August) So the Law of Contract is based around what a reasonable interpretation is so anything else meant but not said is NON-DISCLOSURE. On the agreement there was no mention of "39 months payments @ £35" NON-DISCLOSURE. The agreement did not say anything of the further 39 payments or the total amount payable. This suggests it is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s79 (a rolling contract like credit cards) until you read the total amount of payments are 999 months. But no, having a total amount of periodic payments @ £30.48 shows it comes under s78 in which case those 999 payments should be calculated to a format showing 999 payments of £35? or £30.48?, the total payable under the agreement and the interest charged. Incidentally if all the payments were made the TV would cost £31000+!

 

The agreement fails to be enforceable under the Consumer credit Act 1974 because the information is not on the agreement as required (S60 Prescribed terms) If Dial-a-TV try to enforce the agreement under s64, and goes to Court, s127 precludes a court from enforcing the agreement. So where does the cheque come in with the words FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT FOR GOOD RECEIVED? The payee, Dial-a-TV has about 7 days from cashing the cheque (unclear in law as to the time) to state they accept the payment but refute the cheque being FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT. They have to object to the statement on the cheque quickly or they have tacitly accepted it as FINAL. obviously if Dial-a-TV try to pursue the payment or return of the TV by specialist debt collector then there is always the CCA 1974 s70 (misrepresentation) which states where there is misrepresentation then all payments shall be refunded and the goods (TV) returned. See what happens next. On their next contact they will have the full, legal and lawful response!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Citizen Advice are asking customers of rent-to-own companies to complete a short survey about your experiences of shopping at BrightHouse, Perfect Home or Buy as You View.

 

Your responses will be used to produce a report about consumer experiences in the rent-to-own market.

 

This report will be used to see whether more can be done to protect consumers such as yourself.

 

https://docs.google.com/a/citizensadvice.org.uk/forms/d/1-exGdFfQaO9CiwOKicwroUQvh5bg0J2F1fCZHJBsL5Q/viewform?edit_requested=true

 

Painless enough, hopefully see these parasites closed down!

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

About time these charlatans were attacked by the authorities and media.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

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

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...