Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
    • Steam is still needed in many industries, but much of it is still made with fossil fuels.View the full article
  • 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

Close brothers finance problem


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1991 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

I bought a car from a dealer back in September

 

I've been advised that the turbo needs replacing.

I have 1 years warranty with the car

the warranty provider is trying to claim that it is wear and tear.

I have checked the policy booklet and the turbo is NOT amongst the items not covered on the scheme I have.

 

My mechanic stated that the air intake was broken around the turbo area and the seal was broken in half, he stated that it looked like a botched repair previously done.

 

I have sent the warranty provider an email threatening legal action with my findings and am ready to take action against the dealer concerned.

 

I have written a threatening letter to the RAC

(the RAC are in charge of the dealer concerned) as well but I would like some advice or ideas how I can progress this matter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cra

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

forget the warranty means stuff all!!

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

What date in September??????

 

Under the Consumer Rights Act, if a defect develops within the first six months then the seller is normally entitled to attempt to repair the defect and if the repair fails then they are obliged to refund or replace the item.

 

This is called the long-term right to reject.

 

However, I'm not aware that the recent legislation has abolished the basic Common Law rules of contract. Basic contract law is that if a defect emerges which is so substantial that it undermines the value of the contract then it could be said to terminate the contract anyway – and this would entitle you to reject the item and insist on a refund. This basic rule of contract law applies regardless of the age of the contract. The benefit of the rule under the CRA is simply that within six months any fault which appears is assumed to have been there from the beginning. Under ordinary contract law, you have to do a bit of proving. No assumptions can be made. However, in this case because you have found a botched repair, it is clear that that is the condition of the vehicle at the time of sale so you wouldn't have any problems at all on simply rejecting the vehicle out of hand because it seems to me that a faulty turbo is a fundamental breach of contract.

 

Of course the easiest way to go will be under the CRA and this is why it is important to know the date in September that you made the contract – which includes taking delivery of the vehicle.

 

If you are within the six months then I should write a letter immediately and said it recorded delivery as well as sending an email and tell them that as the contract was made within six months you are requiring them to repair the defect or else provide you with a refund. Warn them that if the defect is not properly repaired then you will consider that the contract is at an end and that you will be insisting on a refund.

 

If you are within six months then get this letter off on Monday morning without fail.

 

Tell us a bit more about this warranty. Was a warranty included as part of the deal or did you pay something extra for it, meaning is it an extended warranty?

 

Warranties as well as extended warranties are generally speaking a load of rubbish and you shouldn't be swayed by a dealer saying that it includes a warranty in order to make a decision between two various vehicles. Nowadays I have the impression that dealers make a big thing of warranties in order to disguise the fact that there are much better statutory rights available. We often have people who come here in despair because their warranty has expired and they assume that they don't have any further rights.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

By the way, I'm not sure that you have told us the name of the dealer. Are you trying to protect them? Who provided the warranty?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, before you get any repair done, see if you can get photographs of the botched repair. You will also need to get a statement from the mechanic who has told you that that the turbo has been poorly repaired

Link to post
Share on other sites

I made the dealer aware of the fault in November/December and he turned around and said it was caused by putting Supermarket diesel in, the fault has only truthfully been diagnosed on the 2nd March and the mechanic repaired the air intake on 5th March - I bought the car on 9th September. I've emailed the garage to send a report on it though he may have mentioned something on the repair receipt.

 

The warranty was bundled with the car for free.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Caused by supermarket Diesel! Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant :lol::-D

 

 

Of course, what the dealer isn't telling you is that Diesel is Diesel is Diesel no matter what pump it comes out of. There are no different kinds of Diesel, only different additives. But even these additives usually do exactly the same thing. Different "grades" of Diesel is a myth (different grades of petroleum accepted as there are different octane levels) perpetuated by the big fuel companies so that people buy their fuel instead of buying it from a supermarket forecourt. It's all about £££ and has nothing to do with what's in the tank.

 

Supermarket fuels (petrol & Diesel) are governed by exactly the same rules as "branded" fuels. Both have to meet minimum specifications in the UK (and worldwide) so for the dealer to say that supermarket Diesel is to blame for the fault, well, he's talking out of something that isn't his mouth :wink:

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, don't worry about what the dealer says about it. As you bought the fault to the attention of the seller in November/December, you may as well say that you were invoking your rights under the 2015 legislation and so you are now insisting on a repair or a refund.

 

If you really are not interested in having the car any more then simply say that the defect in the car is so serious that it has effectively deprived you of the benefit of the contract and so the contract is terminated and you want a refund. In that case you need to return the car to the dealer as quickly as possible, making sure that you have got photographs of it as you leave it on his forecourt so that there is no dispute about alleged damage et cetera.

 

I think you need to tell us what you want to do. If it happens that you would prefer to have the car repaired and frankly I would be wary of having it repaired by the seller. In that case, I would get a proper assessment of the damage and of the value of the repair. Get two quotes and then send them to the seller and tell them that you are intending to get the car repaired and you are giving him seven days to inspect it himself.

 

If you get the car repaired then make sure that you keep broken parts as well as a full photographic record.

 

It is really now up to you to tell us how you want to play it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Caused by supermarket Diesel! Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant :lol::-D

 

 

Of course, what the dealer isn't telling you is that Diesel is Diesel is Diesel no matter what pump it comes out of. There are no different kinds of Diesel, only different additives. But even these additives usually do exactly the same thing. Different "grades" of Diesel is a myth (different grades of petroleum accepted as there are different octane levels) perpetuated by the big fuel companies so that people buy their fuel instead of buying it from a supermarket forecourt. It's all about £££ and has nothing to do with what's in the tank.

 

Supermarket fuels (petrol & Diesel) are governed by exactly the same rules as "branded" fuels. Both have to meet minimum specifications in the UK (and worldwide) so for the dealer to say that supermarket Diesel is to blame for the fault, well, he's talking out of something that isn't his mouth :wink:

 

But that’s not true is it? High grade diesels, and petrols for that matter, offered by the big brand oil companies have higher quality additives and often a higher quantity too which has been proven to improve fuel efficiency and wear... the supermarket fuels do indeed meet minimum specs, but that’s it, no more.

 

It wouldn’t cause a turbo to go though, that’s just silly!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as "high grade Diesel".

 

As part of my last job, now and again I found myself at the port of Avonmouth which has a massive oil terminal. Whilst most of the 'major' oil companies have storage facilities there which only service their own (road) tankers, so do the big brand supermarkets.

 

What do you think happens when (sea) tankers dock at the port?

 

These aren't carrying BP fuel, Shell Fuel or Esso fuel, they're just carrying fuel. Whichever fuel storage facility has ordered that fuel gets it. Now, let's say that that the (sea) tanker is carrying 10M litres of Diesel fuel. Esso may have ordered 3M Litres. Shell 2M, Tesco 4M and Asda 1M litres.

 

But it all comes off the same ship from the same tanks.

 

I did say that the additives were different, but the fuel itself is exactly the same.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You never saw the injection units at any oil terminal then?

 

Yes, but they are for the additives, not the fuel. And I've already said the additives are different (higher quality or whatever you want to call them).

 

So, with the exception of the additives, the fuel is the same, so supermarket Diesel (the Diesel itself) is no different to the Diesel you'd buy from any of the big brands.

 

I feel that we're saying the same thing here disgruntled, just in a slightly different way.

 

But we're digressing from the topic of the thread.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Hi again, due to personal and financial circumstances I had a car on finance but the car became unreliable with many issues.

I stopped payments to Close Brothers due to the problems and being unable to afford them and the car was repossessed.

 

However they got really nasty towards me and tried to restart the finance without my consent on 2 occasions (not enough money in the account and I cancelled the direct debits each time).

 

After a rather heated and blue language phone call to them I have decided to change my bank to a new bank and take the direct debits I want to take with me (crucially not their one).

 

My query is that they are saying that I am still liable to pay them even after the car has been repo'd and are they legally allowed to restart the finance without my consent? The car is (or rather was) 1 year into a 3 year agreement.

 

I just need factual answers so I know which way to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Key here is how much you have paid. How much was the finance and how much was paid... It could be key here...

Did you Surrender the car or did they repo it at their own control?

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The car was worth £3500,

I paid 12 installments of £125 (about £1500) and the total finance was about £4400.

 

I told them to come and get the car as it had too many starting and running problems and I couldn't afford to keep repairing it.

I have also informed action fraud about it as well as they restarted the direct debits without my consent but I'm changing banks soon so they won't have any luck next time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they did VS when yo could have done VT, the Diff being VT=50% only.

VS you pay everything owed.

 

now the car was faulty...why did you have to pay to repair it? not your problem!!

it was the dealers problem not yours, and under the consumer credit act, the financiers Close Brothers, are equally liable.

 

tell us how many months the agreement was for please?

 

sadly close brothers are a very close:lol: 2nd to moneybarn in the way they treat customers.

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

No please dont do either of those!!

 

Is this..

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?485640-Car-warranty-issue

 

You'd paid 1\3rd they should not of repo'd as they were protected goods.

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

That is the warranty issue for the same car - I did email them to end the agreement beforehand as they refused to help me with repairs to the car and it was also having a negative effect on my health.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok well for history ive merged them..

 

What did you say in your email please?

Were you even aware there was vs and vt options??

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

I stated that they could come and collect the car as long as the finance was finished. I could no longer afford to keep the car as it just needed too much in repairs done to it.

 

I was not aware of the options available as they never told me and never helped me with repairs for the car and never understood that there were several other options available. This seems to prove how crooked they are and how they prey on vulnerable people who are not aware of their own rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm wondering if you can get them on either :

 

the car was protected goods

or

you ' stated that they could come and collect the car as long as the finance was finished'

bit we need your exact text please

 

eitherway there might be a chance that their actions MIGHT invalidate the agreement thus voiding it, thus you get everything you paid back and owe nothing , as well as a consummate cost today for the cars worth.

 

not sure..

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...