Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Baldilocks. Welcome to CAG. I've done some minor formatting edits to your post to make it easier to read for people on mobile. Try to keep to 1 or 2 sentences max before creating a line break in your post. It's the Consumer Rights Act 2015, not the Sale of Goods Act 2015. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 superseded The Sale Of Goods Act 1979 and the latter does not apply as I imagine this purchase was made after 1st October 2015. Can you confirm the make, model and age of of vehicle? Some vehicles have their service history stored within the on board computers now or have it available to view online at any point. How did you pay for the vehicle? Finance (what type), Debit/Credit Card etc? I would argue, that should the above points not be correct, you would be right to claim that the goods are not as described under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.  
    • Thanks everyone for all your help, but unfortunately my case was dismissed. This is the 2nd time I've had this happen now so I doubt ill be taking on any parking firms in future sadly. The judge said I lost it on the grounds that the sign said I had 28 days to declare who the owner of the vehicle was, and said I should have complied with this.  My costs are Judgment for the claimant £133.33 Issue fee Hearing fee Solicitors costs - total £265 grand total £398.33 Do those costs look about right?
    • In that case I don't think you'd have any grounds for a claim against the receiver, short of anything actually criminal. The receiver was appointed by the lender so any claim you make should be aginst them. How much equity do you reckon there was when they took possession? Realistic value less outstanding balance (including arrears).  This messing around makes me wonder even more if the property was wildly over valued. Normally a lender would sell and not really care if they got the best price so long as they covered the balance plus their costs. 
    • Hey @lookinforinfo I'm not sure, I don't believe he told them he's the driver. He must have selected an option saying that he's appealing on behalf of the driver or something of the sort. In more news, however, these wannabe thugs are back at it again. Honestly, what a joke. In the letter they sent before this it said they had made "2 attempts" and in this letter they said "4 attempts", I wonder what happened to the "3rd attempt" lol.  WhatsApp Image 2024-04-18 at 14.06.07_44abc9c8.pdf
    • Hi all, I purchased a car in January from Big Motoring World Leeds. At the time of sale I was shown a tab on the salespersons computer marked 'service history' and I was able to take comfort knowing that the car had been serviced on 3 occasions as the date, mileage and company was there on screen. Being a 3 and a bit year old car that, in my mind, constituted full service history 🤷‍♂️ Anyway, collected the car a week later. Once home I settled down to through the book pack etc. Opened the service history booklet and it was completely blank. In addition there were no invoices detailing that any services had been done. I duly contacted BMW and asked them to supply me with proof of service history. They responded saying that on their 'vehicle documentation checklist' I had ticked and then signed to the fact that I had seen the service history and that I was happy with it. I dug out this checklist and what it actually states is 'seen service history online' which I had in the showroom. BMW seem to think that this satisfies their responsibility in providing service history. The reality is that I don't have any proof that the vehicle has ever been serviced! For my own peace of mind I ended up paying for a service that satisfied the manufacturers maintenance schedule to the tune of £330. I even complained to the finance company that the vehicle contravenes the Sale of Goods act 2015 as l, in effect, ot is not as described. Amazingly they weren't interested and instead I just got an email stating that it's not illegal to sell a vehicle without service history and that servicing costs were part and parcel of vehicle ownership. I've since complained to the ombudsman and am awaiting to see if they can help. I have no issue with the car but the treatment and customer service has been the worst I've ever experienced. I don't really know what to do next as I really do feel aggrieved that I've had to pay to service a car that should have already been serviced. Can anyone point me in the right direction please? 🙏
  • 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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5755 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

The OFT has issued its long awaited report and consulation into current accounts terms and conditions, and funding including bank charges

 

Download Personal current accounts in the UK - a market study (pdf 1.2 mb)

Download the executive summary (pdf 146 kb)

 

the report found:

 

we believe the ability for the market to function well has become distorted in three

ways:

 

• first, there seems to be a substantial cross subsidisation from those consumers who incur

insufficient funds charges to those who do not; and to a significant extent from ‘vulnerable’,

low income and low saving consumers, to higher income, higher saving ones

 

• second, the extent of this cross subsidisation means there is a substantial misalignment

between the banks’ revenues and their costs on many of their products and services. This

may lead to inefficiency through under or over consumption of services by consumers, and

 

• third, the lack of consumer awareness and switching on the less visible elements provides

banks with little incentive to compete on them. This may also have an impact on longer term

productivity within the banking sector. Without competition in these areas, banks have lower

incentives to create new and innovative services.

 

it also found that bank charges revenue amounts to 30% of current account income, and that the APR of an unauthorised overdraft amounts to an average of over 200% when you include charges.

 

As part of CAG YOU are a STAKEHOLDER. I expect CAG intends to be review the report and looking at the Consultation Paper, and will make a contribution to the consultation.

 

Therefore, it would be useful if YOU put your views on this thread, so CAG can help express YOUR opinion and you can have YOUR say on the findings.

Edited by tomterm8

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom there appears to be a variety of opinion in different threads here;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-charges-consumer-issu

es/

 

 

Whilst the findings are not totally unexpected-the figures involved probably certainly are.

Marc reported on this as the news broke this morning,doubtless there will be some response to it once its been fully digested,along with the responses from both the Banks and their regulators.

Edited by MARTIN3030

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess there was some busy boardrooms this morning.

But I saw the Banking regulators were quick to try and offer a defence.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...