Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi I received a Parking Charge letter to keeper on Monday 15/04/24, the 17th day after the alleged incident. My understanding is that this is outside the window for notifying. The issue date was 08/04/2024 which should have been in good time for it to have arrived within the notice period but in fact it actually arrived at lunchtime on the 15th. Do I have to prove when it arrived  (and if so how can I do that?) or is the onus on them to prove it was delivered in time? All I can find is that delivery is assumed to be on the second working day after issue which would have been Weds 10//04/24 but it was actually delivered 5 days later than that (thank you Royal Mail!). My husband was present when it arrived - is a family member witness considered sufficient proof? 1 Date of the infringement  arr 28/03/24 21:00, dep 29/03/24 01.27 2 Date on the NTK  08/04/2024 (Date of Issue) 3 Date received Monday 15/04/24 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012?  Yes 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No    Have you had a response?  n/a 7 Who is the parking company? GroupNexus 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Petrol Station Roadchef Tibshelf South DE55 5T 'operating in accordance with the BPA's Code of Practice'  
    • lookinforinfo - many thanks for your reply. It would be very interesting to get the letter of discontinuance. The court receptionist said that the county court was in Gloucester 'today' so that makes me think that some days it is in Gloucester and some days its in Cheltenham, it was maybe changed by the courts and i was never informed, who knows if DCBL were or not. My costs were a gallon of petrol and £3.40 for parking. I certainly don't want to end up in court again that's for sure but never say never lol. Its utterly disgusting the way these crooks can legally treat motorists but that's the uk for you. I'm originally from Scotland so it's good that they are not enforceable there but they certainly still try to get money out of you. I have to admit i have lost count of the pcn's i have received in the last 2 yr and 4 months since coming to England for work, most of them stop bothering you on their own eventually, it was just this one that they took it all the way. Like i mentioned in my WS the the likes of Aldi and other companies can get them cancelled but Mcdonalds refused to help me despite me being a very good customer.   brassednecked - many thanks   honeybee - many thanks   nicky boy - many thanks    
    • Huh? This is nothing about paying just for what I use - I currently prefer the averaged monthly payment - else i wouldn't be in credit month after month - which I am comfortable with - else I wold simply request a part refund - which I  would have done if they hadn't reduced my monthly dd after the complaint I raised (handled slowly and rather badly) highlighted the errors in their systems (one of which they do seem to have fixed) Are you not aware DD is always potentially variable? ah well, look it up - but my deal is a supposed to average the payments over a year, and i dont expect them to change payments (up or down) without my informed agreement ESPECIALLY when I'm in credit over winter.   You are happy with your smart meter - jolly for you I dont want one, dont have to have one  - so wont   I have a box that tells me my electricity usage - was free donkeys years ago and shows me everything I need to know just like a smart meter but doesnt need a smart meter,  and i can manually set my charges - so as a side effect - would show me if the charges from the supplier were mismatched. Doesn't tell me if the meters actually calibrated correctly - but neither does your smart meter. That all relies on a label and the competence of the testers - and the competence of any remote fiddling with the settings. You seem happy with that - thats fine. I'm not.    
    • Evening all,   So today, I was sent an updated offer that includes the £12.60 I spent on letters, but they have declined to add the interest at £7.40. They have stating 'We acknowledge your request to claim interest to date, however, this would be at the discretion of a trial judge if the claim did proceed to a trial hearing.' I think I am content with this outcome, and pushing this to a trial for a total interest of £15.30 throughout the claim does not make sense to me.   What are people's thoughts? I am sure our courts have better things to concentrate on?
    • FFRSG3424ListofEvidencepdf-V1 2-merged.pdfFFRSG3424ListofEvidencepdf-V1 2-merged.pdf 2pages T&C,s UCM
  • 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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

National Car Credit/Moneybarn - BMW car not fit for purpose


loci_1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2145 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 had a thought last night and it is that if you put the car on the forecourt then symbolically it would be a much more assertive step. It would be rather in-their-face, unambiguous and they would know that they would have to deal with it. It would also divest yourself of a very large part of the problem.

 

This actually would be my recommended step – but if you do it, make sure you are very careful to photograph everything - and take a witness. A witness should simply – witness. Not get involved in any conversation or argument or recrimination or in any way involved. Don't forget, that taking a second person could be seen as provocative. You need somebody who simply watches and listens and stands back. As sexist as this might sound, a person of the female persuasion might be a good choice – not your wife.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, just to keep you updated. I have registered and opened an account on the MCOL website. I will drop into CAB later today and update you tonight. Quick question - do I add the company director as a defendant as well? I have parked the car and will ask the company to collect as it is a 3-hour drive from where I live. If they do not reply within 7 days I will drive the car down. I have photographed the car and made a video recording of the car. I will save this in case they try to claim that damage has occurred. I will draft the letters after visiting CAB and then post them on here for your perusal. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, just a company.

 

Make sure that you photograph the car when you leave it on the forecourt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, sorry for the delay but life and work caught up with me. I have copied copies of the letters below. Please let me know if this is acceptable or any changes you would recommend.

 

National Car Credit

280 Knutsford Rd

Warrington

WA4 1AZ

 

25 May 2018

 

Letter before Court Claim

 

To whom it may concern:

 

RE: BMW Reg:

 

Under Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act, it is an offence for anyone to sell a vehicle that is not roadworthy. This means that any vehicle you buy must be fit and safe to drive. It is also important to remember that an MOT certificate from a test several months ago is no guarantee that the vehicle is roadworthy.

The car sold to me was not roadworthy and did not have an MOT when the said car was sold. It also failed an MOT when I took it for an MOT. It would mean that you have committed an offence under Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act. Furthermore, I have raised a complaint with Trading standards.

I would, therefore, like you to settle all outstanding paid for work which you were informed of and which includes:

MOT and failure rectification - £180

Brakes and Drums - £400

Exhaust - £90

DSC - £400 quote

I expect a full refund of the above amounts, and if you do not agree, could you send me a detailed response including the MOT that would absolve you from the criminal offence you have committed.

If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 14 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue legal proceedings against you in the county court without further notice which may increase you liability for costs.

 

I look forward to your acknowledgement.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

Please find attached a copy of – MOT certificate and failure, copy of previous MOT’s and sales documents.

 

Letter to MB

 

MoneyBarn

The New Barn,

Bedford Rd,

Petersfield

GU32 3LJ

25 May 2018

 

Letter before Court Claim

 

To whom it may concern:

RE: B Reg: F

Under Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act, it is an offence for anyone to sell a vehicle that is not roadworthy. This means that any vehicle you buy must be fit and safe to drive. It is also important to remember that an MOT certificate from a test several months ago is no guarantee that the vehicle is roadworthy.

The car sold to me was not roadworthy and did not have an MOT when the said car was sold. It also failed an MOT when I took it for an MOT. It would mean that an offence was committed under Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act. Furthermore, I have raised a complaint with Trading Standards.

I am therefore expecting a full refund of all monies and interest paid thus far, and the cancelation of the car finance. If you do not agree, could you send me a detailed response of why you will not be honouring the above.

If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 14 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue legal proceedings against you in the county court without further notice which may increase you liability for costs.

 

I look forward to your acknowledgement.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

Please find attached a copy of – MOT certificate and failure, a copy of previous MOT’s and sales documents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, sorry for the delay but life and work caught up with me. I have copied copies of the letters below. Please let me know if this is acceptable or any changes you would recommend.

 

 

 

National Car Credit

280 Knutsford Rd

Warrington

WA4 1AZ

 

25 May 2018

 

Letter before Court Claim

 

To whom it may concern:

 

RE: BMW Reg:

 

Under Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act, it is an offence for anyone to sell a vehicle that is not roadworthy. This means that any vehicle you buy must be fit and safe to drive. It is also important to remember that an MOT certificate from a test several months ago is no guarantee that the vehicle is roadworthy.

The car sold to me was not roadworthy and did not have an MOT when the said car was sold. It also failed an MOT when I took it for an MOT. It would mean that you have committed an offence under Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act. Furthermore, I have raised a complaint with Trading standards.

I would, therefore, like you to settle all outstanding paid for work which you were informed of and which includes:

MOT and failure rectification - £180

Brakes and Drums - £400

Exhaust - £90

DSC - £400 quote

I expect a full refund of the above amounts, and if you do not agree, could you send me a detailed response including the MOT that would absolve you from the criminal offence you have committed.

If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 14 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue legal proceedings against you in the county court without further notice which may increase you liability for costs.

 

I look forward to your acknowledgement.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

Please find attached a copy of – MOT certificate and failure, copy of previous MOT’s and sales documents.

 

Letter to MB

 

MoneyBarn

The New Barn,

Bedford Rd,

Petersfield

GU32 3LJ

25 May 2018

 

Letter before Court Claim

 

To whom it may concern:

RE: B Reg: F

Under Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act, it is an offence for anyone to sell a vehicle that is not roadworthy. This means that any vehicle you buy must be fit and safe to drive. It is also important to remember that an MOT certificate from a test several months ago is no guarantee that the vehicle is roadworthy.

The car sold to me was not roadworthy and did not have an MOT when the said car was sold. It also failed an MOT when I took it for an MOT. It would mean that an offence was committed under Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act. Furthermore, I have raised a complaint with Trading Standards.

I am therefore expecting a full refund of all monies and interest paid thus far, and the cancelation of the car finance. If you do not agree, could you send me a detailed response of why you will not be honouring the above.

If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 14 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue legal proceedings against you in the county court without further notice which may increase you liability for costs.

 

I look forward to your acknowledgement.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

Please find attached a copy of – MOT certificate and failure, a copy of previous MOT’s and sales documents.

 

To begin with, where did this business about absolving them from liability on a production of an MOT certificate come from? I don't think we discussed this at all and even in your own letter you have pointed out that the existence of an MOT does not render a vehicle roadworthy. Your letter is quite contradictory.

 

Also, I have no idea why you want to give them any kind of wiggle room.

 

 

 

On the XXX date you sold me a vehicle registration number XXX. The vehicle was an unroadworthy condition because an MOT inspection only a few days later revealed a number of defects including that the brakes were in a dangerous condition.

 

As I'm sure you know, it is an offence under section 75 of the Road Traffic Act to sell a vehicle in unroadworthy condition.

 

Accordingly I have informed trading standards and I have also begun a section 75A Consumer Credit Act procedure with the finance company to obtain a refund of my money.

 

In respect of your own liability, as you are fully aware you told me that there was a valid MOT certificate in force but it eventually transpired after I had purchased the vehicle that there was no MOT because it had expired a few days before I bought the vehicle.

 

As a result of these matters, I incurred expenses trying to make good some of the defects – as you were made fully aware.

 

I now intend to recover these expenses from you and require full reimbursement within 14 days or else I intend to sue you in the County Court and without any further notice.

 

Please find attached a list of the losses which I have incurred. Also you should understand that if there is any difficulty in obtaining reimbursement from the finance company, that I shall be being a court action for this sum as well separately.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Money barn

 

 

Request for refund of finance per section 75A Consumer Credit Act

 

On the XXX date you provided finance for the purchase of a vehicle registration number XXXX from National Car Credit. Credit agreement reference XXXX.

 

As I have already informed you, the vehicle was defective and it was in unroadworthy condition because the brakes were in dangerous condition and it failed its MOT within a very few days after the purchase.

 

You may be interested to know that before the purchase, National Car Credit assured me that there was a valid MOT certificate in force. In fact I eventually discovered that the MOT certificate had expired before the sale.

 

I'm now applying to you for a full reimbursement of the finance including any charges and interest in relation to the purchase of the vehicle.

 

I hope that this matter can go through smoothly and you will produce my reimbursement very quickly. However, in case there are any problems will you also please take this is my formal complaint so that if you are unable to provide me with the reimbursement within eight weeks, you will provide me with a final response and I can then begin proceedings with the ombudsman.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Road traffic act:lol::lol::lol:

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

Road traffic act:lol::lol::lol:

 

have I confused things? Can you just point out where please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only that surely the claim should be made under a cra claim the sec 75 is meat to that not the reason for the claim?

 

Also whats with all the pages long reply with quotes going on for everyonr??? Makes it rally hard to scroll through unnecessary page after page of repeats to see what each of you have actually posted!!

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

Actually I confess I'm not too sure. I imagine that the way to make an application for a refund under section 75 Consumer Credit Act was simply to make that claim and then state the facts. I wonder if there is some guidance somewhere.

 

Whatever, I'm quite sure the letter is good enough to get the claim started. Money barn realise what it's about and so will the FOS if it gets that far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have looked around a bit more. I notice that for regulated loan agreements – not credit card – that its section 75A section 75.

 

Also, you are entitled to recover exactly the same losses that you could recover under the Consumer Credit Act. This means that you could recover the credit and also any expenses reasonably incurred as a result of the contractual breach.

 

I'm sure that the letter I suggested above is perfectly adequate. Make sure that you refer to section 75 A. If you want you can add the extra losses – or you can add that later on if you want.

 

I would keep proceeding against national car credit simply for the ancillary losses at this point because that will keep it less than £10,000. I think you're definitely going to County Court on that one. With money barn, either they will see sense or you should go to the ombudsman and I expect the ombudsman will take your side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I have looked around a bit more. I notice that for regulated loan agreements – not credit card – that its section 75A section 75.

.

 

Please check the type of agreement you have. Motor finance is usually provided in the form of Hire Purchase or Conditional Sale agreements (PCP is also a type of HP agreement). These are NOT covered under Section 75 of the CCA which would make the above advice incorrect. You are protected by the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973. This link may help to explain the differences.

Edited by ReasonableRon
typo
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...