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
  • Recommended Topics

AMEX Corporate Card - Late Processing of Direct Debit


orge
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3088 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

I have a query in relation to my AMEX corporate card.

 

This is a charge card and is fully cleared once a month by a direct debit from my personal bank account.

American express are withdrawing these funds on the correct day.

 

 

However, my statements and online account always report that the payment has been made a whole month beforehand.

This means that my online balance is almost always wrong and the statements are not a factual record of the account.

Is this even legal??

 

Here is their "explanation" for why this is happening:

 

I see that your August statement was generated on 13th August and your August statement balance was £A. If you refer to the page 1 of your August statement, it states that the balance (£A) will be collected on 7th October (55 days after the statement generation date).

 

This is the reason; the August statement balance was collected on 7th October. Our system applied a pseudo credit of the same amount on the 25th day after the statement generation date to avoid any late payment from being applied. This is the reason; the payment is showing as received on 8th September. However, collected from your bank account on 7th October.

 

 

This hasn't cause any problems up until recently, but then I was surprised by a very large payment which was marked received on my September statemen

t and I had removed from my budget planner.

Fortunately, it went through without any charges but it could have really messed my finances up.

 

Overall, this seems pretty dodgy and their explanation is flaky!

Would greatly appreciate any advice about my options.

 

Thanks,

 

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a query in relation to my AMEX corporate card.

 

This is a charge card and is fully cleared once a month by a direct debit from my personal bank account.

American express are withdrawing these funds on the correct day.

 

 

However, my statements and online account always report that the payment has been made a whole month beforehand.

This means that my online balance is almost always wrong and the statements are not a factual record of the account.

Is this even legal??

 

Here is their "explanation" for why this is happening:

 

 

 

 

This hasn't cause any problems up until recently, but then I was surprised by a very large payment which was marked received on my September statemen

t and I had removed from my budget planner.

Fortunately, it went through without any charges but it could have really messed my finances up.

 

Overall, this seems pretty dodgy and their explanation is flaky!

Would greatly appreciate any advice about my options.

 

Thanks,

 

J

 

Options?

a) persuade them to change their accounting system (unlikely)

b) remain aware of this limitation of their system, and adjust your mental view of the "balance showing" - keeping the 55 days credit period - may be the best option

c) make a payment of the balance manually a few days before the earlier date : so for the "August statement, marked as received September, taken in October" scenario - make the payment on 9th September so that it shows on their system before their system creates the September pseudo-credit.

 

I understand you are saying that the balance owed you see is artificially reduced by their accounting system : but

a) you know this is going to happen and

b) if anything it gives you an extra month interest free.

Is this really a battle you want to fight?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke to my boss and this is unfortunately just the way they work...

They escalated my query as a formal complaint anyway, so I will see what come of that - as you say, probably not very much! ;)

 

Thanks,

 

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...