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
      • 162 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

Moorcroft Harrassment


Givuzagame
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5991 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 am constantly being harrassed by letter from Morrcroft regarding a dispute with O2. I have told them the account is in dispute, that I am waiting (and I know I'll have a long wait..) for O2 to write back.

They have constantly ignored my requests for them to refer this back to O2.

 

Where/Who do I complain to please?

This is harrassment - they are simply NOT LISTENING.

 

I have kept copies of my letters and now they threaten a door step collector ....oooohhhhh.

 

I wonder if they will listen?........

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send them this (amend to suit)

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

Dear Sir or Madam,

Account number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

 

I must admit that I am rather bemused as to why this account has been passed to yourselves, as it is in dispute with the **original creditor/DCA** and has been since DATE 2007.

Not only is this a breach of OFT collection guidelines, but also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Data Protection Act 1998

 

My last letter from **original creditor/DCA** was DATE and intimated that my complaint would be

resolved on **DATE**, this obviously hasn’t happened.

As **original creditor/DCA** are now in default of my Consumer Credit Act request, OFT Collection Guidelines, *Subject Access request and have also breached *s10 Data Protection Act request , I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.

 

As you are aware while my Consumer Credit Act request remains in default enforcement action is NOT permitted, under s127 this constitutes a complete defence at law.

 

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

 

Now I would respectfully suggest that this account is returned to the **original creditor/DCA** for resolution of these defaults and breaches, as **New DCA** cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities.

 

If **New DCA** chooses to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action.

 

After taking advice, I am of the opinion that any continued pursuit is in violation of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40 as well as breaching a number of the OFT Collection Guidelines

 

I hope that this will not be necessary and an acceptable solution can be accomplished.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Yours faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...