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
      • 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

Sinking vs Mint


sinking
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5274 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

Hi all,

 

I'm starting to get used to the forums now. Hope someone can confirm my understanding on this.

 

My GF had a Mint card with a debt of about £3k. It has gone into Default and she is paying a £1 month.

 

Now this is where it all gets a bit vague.

 

She thought they has sold the debt to Allied International Credit (UK) Ltd, so we CCA'd them on August 10th 2009. They replied a week later saying they are acting on behalf of Mint and were unable to comply with the CCA request. They gave the address for Mint (RBS) for us to request a CCA. They kept the £1 postal order and said they would refund in 7 days, but never got anything.

 

Now have letter from APEX Credit Management Ltd dated 18/9/09, saying that they have been instructed by their client, I assume AIC, to pursue this. Stating that their Client has been unable to contact us. We have been paying a £1 per month.

 

Therefore I did the following on Monday :

 

1. Wrote to Mint (RBS) with the CCA request

2. Replied to AIC stating that I have writted to RBS requesting the CCA and that they take no further action.

3. Replied to APEX stating that I have writted to RBS requesting the CCA and that they take no further action.

 

Yesterday I received a letter from APEX, must have crossed in the post, a letter dated 25/9/09 that their client has requested they commence proceedings to recover the debt and I need to contact them within 72 hours. Bearing in mind my letter yesterday, I assume I am covered there. I also reminded APEX that I sent a CCA request to AIC which they rejected and therefore it was clear AIC did not have it, therefore until a CCA is produced APEX should not take any further action.

 

How have I done ? Good or bad ?

 

Thanks, S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What you have here is a game of pass the parcel.

 

RBS still own the alleged debt, and are giving various DCAs a crack at getting the funds from yourself - and believe me these companies will do and say anything to attempt to get funds out of you as they operate on a commission basis only.

 

The threats of legal action are the majority of times just that, an attempt to scare you into parting with money. They very, very, very rarely result in any action because it would be the responsibility of the creditor (i.e. RBS) to instigate legal action, as the DCA does not own the alleged debt they have no right to bring proceedings.

 

OK, what i'm going to suggest is writing to AIC stating that you'll report them to the Office Of Fair Trading, if you do not receive written confirmation from them that they are passing your £1 onto the Royal Bank Of Scotland for the purposes of the s78(1) request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, or refunding the fee immediately by return post. The funds were not a payment towards the account as outlined by the letter.

 

Creditors such as RBS are under a duty to treat customers in financial difficulty with understanding as outlined in the British Banking Code, you have come to an understanding with the bank in paying £1 a month. However they are employing the services of some unsavioury DCAs to try and turn the screw and get more money. If you get badgered anymore by the DCAs or RBS I would consider contacting your local trading standards department to ask for their assistance, likewise DCAs normally back off if you inform them that you are reporting their behaviour to the OFT - and od it.

 

You no doubt have found that DCAs like to use the phone, they put the pressure on by phoning multiple times a day, making all manner of threats and trying to apply pressure to get more money out of people. This is obviously a criminal act of harassment, which not only goes against Law by OFT guidelines.

 

Here's something that would be good for you to familiarise yourself with, the OFT debt collection guidance on unfair practices. Normally DCAs disregard it..... but its what governs their industry.

 

These companies fully try to exploit peoples lack of knowledge to twist their arm, sometimes by illegal means. You wouldn't get RBS phoning you multiple times a day, but they're quite happy for outside companies they contract to harass you contrary to law and guidelines.

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf

 

I've dealt with Mint, AIC, Apex so if you need any further advice just let me know.

Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Enron,

 

Thank you for your post, it is very enlightening.

 

Ok, i've not heard anything more from AIC/APEX.

 

But I did fire a CCA to RBS(Mint), which in hindsight it would have been better for me to go back through AIC/APEX with your comments.

 

Anyway, when I sent the letter to RBS I specifically stated "I enclose a postal order in the sum of £1.00, which is the statuatory fee. Note that these funds are not to be used for any other purpose".

 

Their response :

Thank you for your letter dates 28th September 2009, whih was received into this office on 01 October 2009.

 

Your written request for information made under s78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act must be accompanied by payment of a fee of £1, which we have received and has been applied to your account accordingly
.We are obliged to provide you with a 'true' copy of the credit agreement and a statement of financial information relating to the account, namely, the state of the account, amount currently due, with amounts and due dates of future payments that still require to be made. In terms of CCA copy document regulations, the 'true' copy requirement can be satisfied by providing a copy agreement at the date the card agreement was made and providing that plus a copy of the current terms of the card agreement.

 

I have enclosed the s78(1) information.

 

With regard to your request for a 'statement of account', I have enclosed the most recent statement for the above account. Should you require duplicate statements of your account prior to this date, please contact me accordingly and I will advise you of the cost for these.

 

I can confirm that your account has not been sold.

My questions now are :

 

1. The agreement is dated Jan 2003, but I can find no record of any payments being made and the account appears (from my Credit report) to have gone into default on December 2004. If no payments have been made since December 2004, does the debt meet the statute of limitations in December 2010 if no payments are applied to the account in 6 years ?

 

2. There have been payments of £1 a month paid to AIC/APEX, but these do not seem to appear on the account or listed on the credit file?

 

3. Enclosed with the letter was :


    • A Photocopy of the Application form signed and dated in 2003 by me, stamped by RBS Advanta. It does not detail any Credit Limit and it does not show any Interest Rate.
    • The Photocopied Terms and Conditions state at the top "Credit Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974", however in a box below it is detailed "This is a copy of your agreement for you to keep. It includes a notice about your cancellation rights which you should read". Does this constitute the correct Terms and Conditions they should have provided, as they do not appear to be those as required by the CCA 1974 ? The quality of the photocopy of the Application Form and T&C's are of a much different quality.
    • A letter that seems to be the one provided when a card is issued, as it details "I am pleased to enclose your replacement MINT credit card......", this is not dated. However it is attached to "Credit Card Agreement regulated by the CCA 1974".
    • A copy of their General Conditions
    • Statement of account

Any ideas on which way to go ?

 

Thanks, S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...