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
      • 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

Swift Repossession


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5225 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

 

Here's a conundrum I am in.

 

Swift recently repossessed my home (second legal charge) they then took two months to decide they had no intention of selling it and then passed it onto the first charge mortgage company GMAC RFC.

Which I never agreed to as GMAC RFC did not under any circumstnaces have an eviction order or my consent to take possession of the property.

 

Whilst in Swift's possession damage was deliberately caused to the property.

 

GMAC then allege they instructed an asset company who in turn instructed valuers to survey the property.

The valutions in no way reflect the property and both contradict each other, my 7 year old nephew could do better, seriously.

They refuse to give the addresses of the valuer's so that they can be reported.

 

Currently the property is on the market at a greatly reduced price some 50k below market value due to this.

 

GMAC RFC have a suspended warrant and the mortgage was being paid.

 

My Question is whether this is lawful.

I have never heard of this before as I am still contractually bound to both companies.

Neither of these two have approached me even though when I left the property they had phone numbers and a fax number as well as e-mail.

 

Any help please

Newsmanner and cheers

by the way HAPPY NEW YEAR:-?:roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Newsmanner

I'm very sorry to hear about your troubles, others will be more able to advise you on the legality of your situation but I would urge you to send your story to the OFT who are investigating second charge lending NOW. Address it to [email protected]

This all sounds very dodgy to me, as you have probably gathered there are many of us on the site having problems with Swift but we're supporting eachother and fighting back. 2010 will not be a good year for Swift Advances.

All the best

Sweetjane

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Here's a conundrum I am in.

 

Swift recently repossessed my home (second legal charge) they then took two months to decide they had no intention of selling it and then passed it onto the first charge mortgage company GMAC RFC.

Which I never agreed to as GMAC RFC did not under any circumstnaces have an eviction order or my consent to take possession of the property.

 

Whilst in Swift's possession damage was deliberately caused to the property.

 

GMAC then allege they instructed an asset company who in turn instructed valuers to survey the property.

The valutions in no way reflect the property and both contradict each other, my 7 year old nephew could do better, seriously.

They refuse to give the addresses of the valuer's so that they can be reported.

 

Currently the property is on the market at a greatly reduced price some 50k below market value due to this.

 

GMAC RFC have a suspended warrant and the mortgage was being paid.

 

My Question is whether this is lawful.

I have never heard of this before as I am still contractually bound to both companies.

Neither of these two have approached me even though when I left the property they had phone numbers and a fax number as well as e-mail.

 

Any help please

Newsmanner and cheers

by the way HAPPY NEW YEAR:-?:roll:

 

HI Newsmanner

 

This is also new to me......So I can only say what I would do

 

1.......Send a complaint to the OFT giving a chronological sequence of events to date

2.......Contact the Financial Ombudsman with the same and also the FSA.

 

 

In the mean time seek out a Good solicitor who is willing to give you 1 hrs free advice. I believe there is still something you can do.......Can you post your credit agreement less personal info ?

 

Get your story and facts off to the OFT ASAP.

 

Send it by E-mail to

[email protected]

 

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...