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

1st letter from Wescot re Mint Card Payments


1971clt
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2380 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

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi

My father has just received 2 letters today (21st September).

 

One from Cabot - Their letter is dated the 14th September 2017 and electronically post marked. We sent the letters on the 6th with proof of postage. The letter is attached but the first line states "We currently do not have this information on file".

 

Please inform me what letter I should reply with for my father.

 

The next is from Mint. There is no date attached but is electronically post marked.

The only information given to my father are all his statements over the last 12 years. There is no letter attached - only statements.

 

Again, I would be extremely grateful for what I should do next.

 

Thank you in advance

C

 

https://imgur.com/zBir2xS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow upload don't use photo bucket

 

So you can stop payment too

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your replies.

 

He is concerned that if he stops the £5 per month payment (which he is happy to pay as its zero percent APR) that they may "come after him" for the full amount.

 

Do I write to confirm that I understand they have not been able to supply the correct information in the required time frame and that I require confirmation from them that the debit is now void (?)

 

I think he would be happier with something in writing from them to say something along those lines.

 

Thank you again

C

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't do anything bar stopping you payment

 

Until/unless they find an enforceable agreement they are stuffed

A dca is not a bailiff

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As stated:-

 

Stop Paying the fleecers.

 

never void! but unenforceable until/If they ever supply a compliant CCA1974 containing all the regulated requirements etc etc

 

if ever anybody came after him for the full amount then a court case would no doubt be used = no CCA1974 then as they admit no enforcement,, even then if things turned out against him there is always a Tomlin Order whereby an agreed repayment amount monthly and no CCJ on file but only use as a last resort.

 

 

Read other threads and get to know the way they operate and how to stop them>

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...