Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They won't have offered you a course when they sent the NIP because they don't know who was driving until you tell them.   If you are eligible for a course they will almost certainly offer it - irrespective of whether you've refused one in the past.  If they do offer you a course, I think you'd be daft not to accept it.  (I understand many drivers refuse because they think they'll be treated like naughty schoolkids, but apparently it's not like that and most people find them very useful and learn something new.)
    • Thanks. Sound advice again. I will tread carefully.    I have checked the first correspondence that they sent to me and there is no sign of an offer of a speed awareness course, I do remember being offered one a good few years ago but did not take that up at the time. That may be the reason for it not being offered again.     Looks like my only option now is to shut up and pay up.    Thanks for your input which is much appreeciated.    
    • Just about and card or loan clamform thread here You agree to mediation until the actual call on the day If by then you still dont have enough info to make an informed decision..you say no.   3 copies n180.  1 wit you
    • Think they would be silly to appeal as a more forensic look at VCS MO and shenanigans could turn round and bite Simon on the bum.
    • Experts are saying that the PM's roadmap is more about dates than data, the opposite of what he claims. He could be making a rod for his own back again.   https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/26/experts-criticise-boris-johnson-putting-dates-covid-roadmap?CMP=share_btn_tw
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Black horse Finance - Interesting clause


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4779 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Basically i have just taken out a fuxed term, 36month low interest loan (2.2% APR would you beleive) on a new motorcycle.

 

Which i am completely happy with, for the most part.

 

One small clause is bothering me.. written in the "key information" is this statement.

 

"you have no right to cancel this Agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Timeshare act 1992 or the Financial services (distance marketing) regulations 2004".

 

Is this a legal statement? Everything else is good soto speak.. just this i was wondering about.

I like this site because of the following:

 

Halifax: Settled in full (£898.00 out of court)

Abbey: Various charges refunded totalling approx £600.00

Homebase: Consumer issue sorted - found all info here before even asking.

Travian games: in progress (started 22-09-07)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no general right to cancel an agreement under the CCA - in other words, no cooling off period as you get with many other contracts. This looks like a way of simply stating the case. However, whether it is compliant with information regulations is a different matter. I take it this was done on the premesis of the business and not at home

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops! I meant the Consumer Credit (Agreement) Regulations 1983 (i was a bit tipsy yesterday!).

 

However, on reading it, it does state in schedule 1 the exact phrase referred to by the OP. So it's OK then.

 

I shall take a drunkeness test before i post in future an my apologies for any confusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The statement is correct, and reflects (I assume) the fact that you signed the agreement on the trade premises of either the supplier of the finance or the motorbike.

 

By doing so you are not given the protection of a 'cooling off' period as it is assumed by the very fact that you were on their premises that you were there under your own free will (unlike, for example, if you had received an unsolicited visit to your house). On a separate note, imagine the chaos that would be caused if people could randomly cancel finance agreements where a brand new car or bike had already been delivered :eek:

 

Amongst many other required changes to the form and content of credit agreements introduced in May 2005 was a requirement to state on the front of the credit agreement whether it was cancelable or not.

 

Hope that helps.

 

RR

Link to post
Share on other sites
The statement is correct, and reflects (I assume) the fact that you signed the agreement on the trade premises of either the supplier of the finance or the motorbike.

 

By doing so you are not given the protection of a 'cooling off' period as it is assumed by the very fact that you were on their premises that you were there under your own free will (unlike, for example, if you had received an unsolicited visit to your house). On a separate note, imagine the chaos that would be caused if people could randomly cancel finance agreements where a brand new car or bike had already been delivered :eek:

 

Amongst many other required changes to the form and content of credit agreements introduced in May 2005 was a requirement to state on the front of the credit agreement whether it was cancelable or not.

 

Hope that helps.

 

RR

 

 

 

yes it was signed on the premises of the motorbike dealer, like i said, dont have a problem with the agreement, was jsut intreagued by that statement is all as i had never seen it, and thought that there was a 10 day cooling off period attacked in this circumstance..

I like this site because of the following:

 

Halifax: Settled in full (£898.00 out of court)

Abbey: Various charges refunded totalling approx £600.00

Homebase: Consumer issue sorted - found all info here before even asking.

Travian games: in progress (started 22-09-07)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...