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

Credit Union refinanced loan to increase debt


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2031 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, we've had a few issues with a local credit union recently.

 

Having gone over paperwork for a loan for a family member, it appears that the credit union refused to off-set savings to allow a defaulted debt to be paid off, and instead insisted on refinancing.

 

If the savings had been used to off-set, the debt outstanding would have been approx. £300 and could have been repaid easily in a couple of months, at the time. The person asked to do this (in writing). The credit union refused.

 

As it is, the person now cannot repay the repayments at all as they have only PIP as income, and now the credit union are claiming the debt is closer to £3000 AFTER taking off the savings. The credit union won't provide a breakdown of amount paid or any justification of why they felt making them take out thousands to cover what boils down to £300 is acceptable. Run by one person, so complaints are never upheld.

 

Family member is disabled and at the time they agreed to the refinancing, was not only unwell themselves, but also had family members quite unwell too.

 

Credit Union are very aware of this, but basically don't care and have said as much.

 

It just looks like the credit union took a massive advantage to make interest off him. While big banks may well do it, it feels nastier from a credit union who's customers are more likely to be vulnerable, and actually I'm not sure a big bank would insist a customer took out a loan of approx. £4000 to cover £300. I think they'd take the savings and go after the £300 separately, not allow refinancing beyond affordability and sense. No 'extra' funds were made available due to refinancing either, it was all to avoid taking even a penny out the savings.

 

 

Of course it would be nicer to keep savings intact, but if they couldn't afford the repayments, and wanted to decrease their debt, it seems ridiculous to make them pay so much more on top just to keep the money there. They now owe so much more, and are in a worse position.

 

This credit union have in the past also been known to move money around accounts to make new accounts to put part of their savings in for people without their knowledge and also take money out people's savings for use of their business. Only small amounts- an extra £10 going missing at Christmas out a income-related benefit, for example. Statements were never sent too. Also rather than add charges to a debt or incurred cost, they were taken directly out of savings.

 

The credit union have recently been told in court they are NOT allowed to refuse to off-set savings, in order to create a larger debt to sue for. Owner claimed ignorance about off-setting, despite approx. 20 years owning the business.

 

Is there anything we can do about this? Complaining to the credit union is useless. It feels like they took advantage and scammed him- I'm quite angry about it, angry at myself too for not seeing it at the time but with no statements, we had nothing to compare it to.

 

Also, how do we calculate interest on a refinanced loan? As there seems to be something amiss on the figures too.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

1st

Have you every piece of paperwork?

If not sar them

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...