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
      • 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

Copy of credit agreement - Moorcroft


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6043 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 agree with sequenci, send the CCA request to Egg now. They're the Original Creditor and will be absolutely bound by Statute to comply, not that Moorcroft weren't of course.

 

It's very annoying, because Moorcroft were legally obligated by Section 175 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to pass on your request to Egg;

S.175. Where under this Act a person is deemed to receive a notice or payment as agent of the creditor or owner under a regulated agreement, he shall be deemed to be under a contractual duty to the creditor or owner to transmit the notice, or remit the payment, to him forthwith.
And in reality they've taken the payment, decided they no longer want to play with you because there's no commission for them, returned the account back to Egg and kept your money for themselves! That's about the top and bottom of it isn't it?

 

Even though this is just about a quid... The bottom line is about one of two things...

  • 1. You've got Moorcroft off your back for the measly sum of a quid, you're happy!
  • 2. Moorcroft have taken your money, not complied with a legal request, returned the account to the OC without complying with the law, and kept your money!!!

If No1 applies, you're happy, end of story thus far!!

If No2 applies, you're not happy, and you want your money back!

 

My own personal view of this is actually No1 ! Because, as strange as it sounds, for the measley sum of 1 English (or Scottish) Pound I now have a letter that I can file/keep/copy that says we cannot comply. This letter I can use to send to any future Debt Collection Agencies when they rear their ugly heads!! :D

 

The method of my madness revealed! :rolleyes:

 

Should for some reason you choose option 2, you could of course write back to Moorcroft asking for your quid back and report them to Trading Standards for not returning your payment.

 

I hope some of that has made sense...?!?!! :D

 

Good luck and best wishes. Regards, Dave.

  • 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...