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

Mbdiss v RBS/CMS advice please


mbdiss
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6284 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 could do with some advice on this not sure how to respond to BRS/CMS letter.

 

Thank you for your patience whilst I have been investigating your concern. thats waht you think

 

I understand that your concern relates to the Bank writing to you after being advised the matter was closed. not sure you do but nice try anyway:p

 

Firstly, may I say that I was sorry to hear of your dissatisfaction with the Bank. We endeavour to maintain a high standard of customer service so, naturally, I was disappointed to learn that you believed that those standards have not been met on this occasion. b****s you our.

 

Having reviewed our records, I can see a full and final settlement of £********* was credited to your account on 17 November 2006. The remaining liability on the account has since been written off and the account should have been closed. you thinks:-x

 

Regrettably, your account has remained open and due to an oversight by the Bank, we have continued to write to you. You don't say why do you think i wrote to you muppet:-x

 

I would like to apologise on the Bank’s behalf for your account not being closed as promptly as you would have liked. I have arranged for your account to be closed urgently. should have be done in november 06

 

I am also sorry for the Bank writing to you on 15th December 2006.

 

As I can see from our records, my colleague has sent you a Discharge letter on 5 January 2007. We will not be contacting you again regarding this matter. ( just try it) Your credit file will indicate that this account has been partially satisfied.

 

I am sorry for the confusion and inconvenience caused. you soon will be

 

I hope that you are happy with my explanation of events, however if you would like to discuss matters, please call me on 01952 206063. Naturally, I will do my best to resolve your concern, however, if after 12 February 2007 you are not satisfied with my account of events or my proposal for resolution then you can ask the Financial Ombudsman Service to look at your case. I have enclosed a copy of the Financial Ombudsman leaflet, which details how you can get in touch with them.

 

If after that date I have not heard from you then I will close our case presuming that you are entirely satisfied.

 

 

 

The main issue here is the fact that they are saying they will show that the loan account as partially satisfied. Which I think is misleading also this account was original discharged on the 6th November and is what they wanted as full & final settlement. the above letter is dated 9th jan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all they say the debt was written off , then they say they made a C*** *p and left it open, then they say your credit file will show partially satisfied.....They must be joking

 

Principle 2 of the Banking Code Standards Board states

"A Bank must organise its internal affairs and management systems with skill, due care and dilligence"

Principle 9 states

"It must organise and control, conduct and manage its affairs in a professional manner"

 

In their own admission in that letter they have breached these two principles and ADMITTED it.

 

 

write and tell them this and say in your view and their own admission they are guilty of professional negligence.

 

 

Sparkie1723

Link to post
Share on other sites

hummm now theres food for thought will look in to this and see where i can take it. thanks very much. if you have any more ideas please post them or anyone for tha matter

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is the reply i have come up with do it look ok. any thourghts?

 

Dear Mr ********

 

I thank you for your letter dated 9th January 2007. While I may satisfied that you have now ensured the account referred to in my letter dated 4th January 2007 has now be closed.

 

However I still remain dissatisfied with the manner that the Royal Bank of Scotland and Credit Management Services have dealt with whole matter. By your own admissions you are guilty of professional negligence. As Principle 2 of the Banking Code standards Board states, “ A bank must organise and control its internal affairs and management systems with skill, due care and diligence.” I feel that the RBS and CMS have completely disregarded this principle in this case.

Also in Principle 9 of the same code it states “It must organise and control, conduct and manage its affairs in a professional manner.” Which again I feel that BRS and CMS have completely disregarded.

 

In your letter you state that you will show the account as “partially satisfied.” Which I am extremely unhappy with. The settlement figure for this account was set by your selves and was paid in full. I feel that your comments on my credit file and showing the account as partially satified are misleading and aimed at harming me financially in the future. I therefore request that remove all comments and change your entry on my credit file to show “settled” as I feel this is a fair representation of the facts of this case.

 

If we are not able to come to a mutual agreement on this matter then I shall take this matter further.

 

I hope this clarifies my Position.

 

Yours sincerely

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...