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

OFT and unfair relationships


Guest NATTIE
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5094 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

Guest Niklowe

3.6 In addition, we operate the credit licensing regime under the 1974 Act.

This requires us to be satisfied that a person is fit to engage in consumer

credit activities. In doing so we must have regard to all relevant matters

including whether the trader, or an associate or former associate, has

contravened relevant legislation or

has engaged in business practices

which are deceitful or oppressive or otherwise unfair or improper,

whether unlawful or not.

3.7 The 2006 Act broadens the fitness test to include credit competence

 

I like this paragraph

Link to post
Share on other sites

The collective interest test (3.24 onwards) makes for very concerning reading for the banks.

 

Everyone on this forum should write to the address at the front and give examples of where the banks are collectively doing this to the whole damn marketplace.

 

 

3.24 Part 8 is not a means of pursuing individual redress. It applies only to

 

infringements which harm the collective interests of consumers. This

means that the breach must affect, or have the potential to affect,

consumers generally or a group of consumers.

 

3.25 The unfair relationships provisions in section 140A apply to an individual

relationship between a lender and a borrower. However, the lender may

enter into such relationships with more than one consumer, and in doing

so may, by virtue of acts or omissions giving rise to unfairness, have an

adverse effect on a number of them.

 

3.26 It is not necessary for the harm to each consumer to be the same, or to

be felt in the same way. And in some cases there may be a risk of harm

which has yet to translate into actual detriment. It is not necessary to

demonstrate actual loss to consumers for Part 8 action to be available.:grin:

 

3.27 In considering the scope for Part 8 action based upon the unfair

relationships provisions, the OFT would consider whether there is a

common factor which is likely to make a number of individual

relationships 'unfair' and so harm the collective interests of consumers.

It would not be necessary to demonstrate that there is more than one

'unfair relationship', or to adduce evidence to that effect, if it can be

shown that the common element in the lender's behaviour may give rise

to such a relationship in a number of cases.

 

3.28 For example, a lender may use standard terms in its agreements with

consumers, or may operate in a common manner in respect of borrowers

generally or a group of borrowers. The practice may give rise to

unfairness in each case, or in a number of cases, and so may harm the

collective interest. Again, it is not necessary for the practice to occur in

all cases, or to have the same impact on borrowers. It may be sufficient

that it gives rise to an unfair relationship in one case and has the

potential to do so in others.

 

I'm off to get a copy of the 2006 CCA (I've already got the Enterprise Act), and get the proper wording - I might start kicking a**e on this front.

I'm often a sarcastic SOB and speak my mind (and I don't do PC at all), but I have a laugh as I go. I won't be intimidated, and I don't take prisoners... so live with it, or go get yourself a humour implant :p

 

Copy of Law book from Amazon…£19.95, Refund Request stamp...32p, LBA stamp...also 32p, Court fees...£750.00,

The look on the bank's barrister's face, when they lost the '£25k Mother-of-all unfair charges' cases...(plus his £8k+ of costs)... Priceless!

 

The legal bit: These are my opinions and own view of legislation and process. I accept no liability whatsoever for any outcome as a result of anyone invoking any or all of the advice given - clarify your own personal stuation with an insured legal professional.

Saying that, I've used these methods against many of these corporate crooks:evil: and won hands down!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also.... this makes great reading...

 

 

 

4.17 For example, the borrower may be unaware that a fee would be charged

 

in a particular case, or the level of the fee, or how this might impact on

the debt. He may also be unaware that rates might increase in particular

circumstances, or were unlikely to reduce in line with changes in the

market. The lender may have failed to disclose relevant information, or

may have done so in an unclear or misleading manner. As a result, the

consumer may not have entered into the transaction in full knowledge of

the facts. He may also have had, in the circumstances, no real choice as

to acceptance of the particular terms.

 

i.e. Accept our charges or we won't give you an account!

I'm often a sarcastic SOB and speak my mind (and I don't do PC at all), but I have a laugh as I go. I won't be intimidated, and I don't take prisoners... so live with it, or go get yourself a humour implant :p

 

Copy of Law book from Amazon…£19.95, Refund Request stamp...32p, LBA stamp...also 32p, Court fees...£750.00,

The look on the bank's barrister's face, when they lost the '£25k Mother-of-all unfair charges' cases...(plus his £8k+ of costs)... Priceless!

 

The legal bit: These are my opinions and own view of legislation and process. I accept no liability whatsoever for any outcome as a result of anyone invoking any or all of the advice given - clarify your own personal stuation with an insured legal professional.

Saying that, I've used these methods against many of these corporate crooks:evil: and won hands down!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

i.e. Accept our charges or we won't give you an account!

 

 

Or perhpas more importantly accept or no one will give you a bank account since their T&Cs all contain the same essence!

 

So in other words you have no choice as a consumer other than to be forced to accept those conditons because every bank/cc company includes the same terms.

 

Des that make it any worse for the bakns etc and better for us?

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the FAQ section which explains WHY you're entitled to claim back the charges and HOW to do it...Once you've done all that you can get someone to check that your first letter is correct!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you get your copies of the Acts, Surly? From online or in print/book form?

 

You can either buy them online from HMSO (slightly cheaper than ordering through Waterstones)...however, these are hard copies so cutting and pasting is a bit hard... the glue is a real b*tch to clean off your screen:rolleyes:

 

Else, open the link on the website which brings up an HTML version of the Act... I then cut and paste all the pages into a Word document and then save locally. If you're not reproducing them for commercial gain, then you're not breaching Crown copyright if you quote them.

I'm often a sarcastic SOB and speak my mind (and I don't do PC at all), but I have a laugh as I go. I won't be intimidated, and I don't take prisoners... so live with it, or go get yourself a humour implant :p

 

Copy of Law book from Amazon…£19.95, Refund Request stamp...32p, LBA stamp...also 32p, Court fees...£750.00,

The look on the bank's barrister's face, when they lost the '£25k Mother-of-all unfair charges' cases...(plus his £8k+ of costs)... Priceless!

 

The legal bit: These are my opinions and own view of legislation and process. I accept no liability whatsoever for any outcome as a result of anyone invoking any or all of the advice given - clarify your own personal stuation with an insured legal professional.

Saying that, I've used these methods against many of these corporate crooks:evil: and won hands down!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

does anyone know if this applies to finance agreements as well ?

 

My partner has a vehicle on fiance - we asked to change to date

of the direct debit to suit is salary being paid but they only

would not allow us to pay on the date we requested.

 

The agreement states they can charge us £25 if we do not pay

on the agreed date. I have had some advice to say they may be

forcing him into default because they won't allow us to pay on

our preferred date. We pay the instalments every month, just

cannot do it when they want it because of all our other payments

 

We are thinking of challenging this term of the agreement if we can

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...