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
      • 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

Dani v Mint


Dani
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6396 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

  • 2 weeks later...

I am sending mine tomorrow, did you hear anything back?

Story so far...

 

BOS - Student account - preliminary request letter sent

 

Cahoot - Current account - list of charges totalling £420 recieved

Cahoot - Credit card - list of charges totalling £200

 

Mint - Request for list of charges made by telephone and letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received a reply this morning.

 

Just bog standard reply - sorry I am not happy, looking into the matter, blah blah.

 

nothing unusual.

Dani

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ok today i have received this letter:

 

Dear XXXXX

 

Thank you for your recent letter concerning the late fees charged on your NATWEST Visa account (its Mint, not Natwest!). I am sorry to learn of the concern you have been caused.

 

Whilst strongly disagreeing with the OFT's legal position on credit card default charges, the Royal Bank of Scotland Group has lowered its late payment and over limit fees for credit cards to £12 with effect from 28 June 2006.

 

The royal Bank of Scotland Group has alwatys been committed to ensuring that its customers understand its charges and our fee levels which applied previously were clearly and consistently communicated to our customers at that time as part of our published tariff of charges.

 

It is not our policy to refund late payment/over limit fees that were charged previously at a higher level at the time the fee was incurred.

 

Having said this, I will agree to refund the difference between the two tariffs. This amount totals £88. I have therefore applied a credit to your account today.

 

If after 3 October you remain dissatisfied then you can ask the Financial Ombundsman Service to look at your case.

 

Miss XXXX I trust I have clarified our position and I thank you for taking the time and trouble in writing to Natwest (its Mint, not Natwest!!)

Yours sincerely

 

 

Now, I'm guessing I send a letter back to them saying this is not acceptable and I will be pursuing the remainder of the money? Is this a standard reply??

Dani

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've checked my account today, and they have put the money straight onto my card as well.

 

I am planning on sending the letter below:

 

Dear useless bankers

Thank you for your letter dated 8 August 2006. I must point out that it is in fact a Mint Card, and not a Natwest Visa as you have stated in the letter.

I accept the £88 as a preliminary payment and will be pursuing the remaining amount of money as stated in my letter dated XX August 2006. This is the sum of XXX.

I must remind you that the 14 day deadline expires on XX August, after which I will be filing my claim with the courts.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Does this seem ok??

Dani

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Seems okay.

 

I've not been on the forum for a while, not exactly a newbie myself, so far claimed nearly £5k back, just going to tackle the last £3k, some of which is owed by Mint (only £10), the trouble I have is that the registered office is in Edinburgh, I know RBS own MINT, I managed to launch a successful claim against Natwest (also an RBS company), but they had registered offices in London, I'd love to know where people are successfully addressing their MCOL against Mint to.

 

Thanks, and good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...