Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I forgot to say, there is one last possibility and that is that they will receive your letter of rejection and simply fold, accept the rejection and refund you. Don't wait too long for this. Seven days maximum – but in that seven days you could send your letter of claim anyway and when that you don't hear from them or when they start mucking around at least you are seven days closer to beginning the legal action – and they will know it (which is the important thing).
    • Okay that is excellent that you have an email between the garage and the warranty company confirming that there is a serious problem with the gearbox. That is very powerful evidence. I think the situation is this: you have sent them a letter of rejection but the reputation of big motoring world is that they won't take a lot of notice and they will try to prevaricate and maybe even blame you. Clearly you don't want the car any more and anyway it sounds as if the cost of repairs is going to be enormous. You don't know if the warranty company is going to step up to the mark but the whole thing is going to take a long time and I understand that you have lost confidence in big motoring world because of this event and also their reputation which you are now discovering on Facebook and on this forum and no doubt elsewhere. On the basis that you don't want the car any more and you want your money back, you need to hurry things along. I think the first thing is that you need to decide if you are prepared to bring a claim in the County Court. Even without the warranty money, the claim is worth more than £10,000. For actions less than £10,000, you bring a "small claim" and this means that even if you lose the case you won't be liable for the other side's costs. If you win the case then not only will you get your money plus interest but also you will recover all of the costs of the action. For actions more than £10,000, you go to something called the "fast track" and in the event that you lose the case, then you could be liable to reimburse the winner some of the costs. This means that in addition to not recovering your own money, you would lose your own court fees and also you would have to to bear the costs of the other side probably something less than £5000 – but as a rough guess. If you bring your court claim then your chances of success are almost 100%. Frankly if you brought a court claim then I can imagine that big motoring world will put their hands up and pay you out rather than face go to court and losing and getting a judgement against them. However, it you need to consider that this is a risk factor – although my view it is a negligible risk factor. If you did bring a court case, it wouldn't be instant. If they put their hands up then it would probably happen very quickly. If they didn't put their hands up then you could take anything up to a year for the matter to be resolved and during that time you would be without your car and without your money and in the middle of litigation. I'm explaining this to you say that you understand how it works. Bring a court case would be really the last resort when everything else has failed. However, I'm quite certain that you would win and it would be stupid of big motoring world to try to resist. In order to bring a court case you would have to send a letter of claim giving them 14 days to accept rejection and organise the refund otherwise you would begin the claim. Don't imagine that you could bluff this. If you did send a letter of claim then you would have to go through with it otherwise you lose all credibility and you might as well pack up and go home. So with this in mind, here are possible courses of action you could take. You can simply wait and see what their reaction to your letter of rejection will be. However they may not reply or else they may find some other reason to delay and of course during that time you will be without your car and without your money blah blah blah, not knowing if big motoring world were going eventually to start acting sensibly and respectfully towards you. The second thing you can do – and I think this has been suggested on Facebook – is that you can go along there and simply make yourself present and talk to other customers and generally speaking make a nuisance of yourself and embarrass them to the point where you would be explaining to other potential customers to be careful, to look on Facebook, and to do some careful research before they put their business to big motoring world. This has a reasonable chance of success although you would have to be careful. You should go accompanied by a friend and there should be no anger, no arguments, nothing that could be considered as being overly aggressive so that big motoring world would have no justification in kicking you out or even worse, calling the police. If you did this, then I would suggest that you record everything on the telephone carried in a pocket. A fully charged battery will probably keep a voice recorder and a telephone going for more than 20 hours or 30 hours. The other person can video any incidents so that everything is clear and you can inform big motoring world then it will be going up on the Internet. If you did this, my favourite option would be to issue the letter of claim giving them 14 days, and then going along to big motoring world with a copy of your letter of rejection and a copy of the exchange between the mechanic and the warranty company and a copy of your letter of claim – all settled together – and probably about 20 or 30 copies in all and I would start handing them out to any customers who came in. Big motoring world will soon get the picture and they will either move your the premises in which case you stand outside and carry on doing it or they will finally give in. Of course there is a chance that they won't give in and they will simply call your bluff – but in that case I think you have no choice other than to follow through with your 14 day threat in the letter of claim and to begin the legal action. At the same time you should be putting up reviews on Google and also trust pilot explaining exactly what has happened and also explaining that the mechanic has confirmed to the warranty company that there is the serious problem, that you have asserted the right to reject and that this is been ignored by big motoring world and that you have now sent a letter of claim and that you will be starting a legal action in 14 days. Once again, don't bluff about the legal action. If you threaten it – then you must mean it – and on day 15 you click of the claim. You don't need a solicitor for any of this. It's all fairly straightforward and of course we will help you all the way that it the decision is yours to make and I think you need to make it fairly quickly. I think the cost of starting an action for about £13,000 is 5% and then also if it goes to trial which I would say is almost impossible – there would be an additional fee. You would claim interest at 8%. A judge might award a lower figure but frankly if you can show that big motoring world is attempting to ride roughshod over your very clear statutory consumer rights, I can imagine that the judge will want to show displeasure by awarding the full 8% which is a pretty good rate – even though it's not compensation for the hassle and the distress you are going through. If you decide to get solicitor, then if you win the case, because it is over £10,000 you will recover some of your costs but you won't recover all of them. If the solicitor begins by having exchanges of letters then I doubt whether you will be up to recover the cost of those and you could easily find that you're chalking up 500 quid or even a thousand simply on initial exchanges of correspondence. Also you need to bear in mind that if after having exchanges with a solicitor, big motoring world cave in – then you definitely won't get those costs back because you won't have gone to court and therefore a judge will not have made the order for payment of those costs. I suggest very strongly that you avoid paying any money for a solicitor and that you do it yourself. It's not a big deal – although you will have to you react quickly to the help we offer on this forum. Also, an additional benefit is that you will learn a lot and you will gain confidence and eventually you will feel good about suing anybody else who gets in your way. Nothing not to like! If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must take control of the solicitor. Most of them prefer to sit in an office writing letters on the clock. If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must instruct the solicitor very firmly that they should send one letter of complaint giving seven days. A second letter – a letter of claim giving 14 days and that they must then begin the action. If you don't do this. If you don't take control then it will simply cost you money, you will be without your car even longer and of course without your money. The whole thing is a nightmare. I think I've laid out the options but please do ask questions. I hope you can see that this is the kind of advice that you won't be getting on Facebook. Nothing against Facebook. It's good as a meeting place and to make people realise that they aren't on their own – but after that the advice given is weak and confusing.  
    • What makes you say that?  I have no idea how I would go about that or why they would even entertain discussions now that they've won the Court case
    • Our main Equity Partner, Cabot Square Capital invests 
    • Yes it’s the garage and warranty company. And then my husband forwarded me the email. 
  • 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

APR wrong!


excel1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5790 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

Am i right in believing that if the APR is wrong on my~CCA then its unenforceable?

thanks

All comments are well meant but i am not legally qualified only CAG educated:D

 

 

In the slight chance i have been helpful please click the scales:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

could you please enlighten me, the APR states 29.8% but have worked it out that its 40.47%!(theiving BAS*****S):-x

All comments are well meant but i am not legally qualified only CAG educated:D

 

 

In the slight chance i have been helpful please click the scales:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

£3000 over 4 years repayments £115.95 x 48 = £5565.60

they say 29.8% APR

This works out at about £101 per month and £4885 but if you use 40.47% it comes to £5565.60

This is a abuy now pay later agreement but nowhere is there any other maths or charges

All comments are well meant but i am not legally qualified only CAG educated:D

 

 

In the slight chance i have been helpful please click the scales:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi excel,

 

On the face of it, it does appear that this is wrong. However, what you need to think about is if there was any payment holiday at the start of the loan.

 

You mentioned that is was "a buy now pay later agreement". It may be in the t&cs that, although you didn't need to make any payments, interest would still be accruing on the loan during the payment holiday.

 

So if, for example, you did not have to make any repayments for the first 6 months then the interest would still be accruing during this period and the figures you've given would be correct and the apr is 29.8% as you are actually borrowing the money over over 54 months.

 

Hope this is helpful

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks now i understand it:roll:

All comments are well meant but i am not legally qualified only CAG educated:D

 

 

In the slight chance i have been helpful please click the scales:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The CCA regulations 1983 say that two interest rates should appear on a CCA agreement.

 

1. the interest rate to be applied ( It could be a monthly or annual rate)

 

2. The APR if the interest rate 1 would result in an actual annual rate that is 0.1% below or 1% above the figures of the APR. The APR is the rate that you would have been quoted for the loan - it might have been just before you signed.

 

In most agreements the APR therefore does not have to be shown but the rate to be applied must. If it is shown it is usually a waste of space but it may well mean that you are being charged an actual rate that is well above the APR you have been quoted

 

If the APR is the ONLY rate shown the agreement is unenforceable simply because the APR is never 'the interest rate to be applied' because

 

a) If it contains compulsory fees it cannot express the interest to be applied.

b) It is an approximation to one decimal place and an annual rate must be to 2 or three decimal places to be accurate.

 

Unfortunately since it was introduced in 1977 as a total cost of borrowing rate to enable borrowers to compare loans the APR has come to mean in most peoples' minds the actual annual rate that will be charged on a loan. This is wrong.

 

When the APR is worked out all compulsory costs (eg an arrangement fee ) and interest payments are combined to arrive at an accurate total cost of borrowing rate. This rate is then rounded to one decimal place to arrive at the APR. Even if there are no costs the rounding is still allowed so the APR is always an approximation.

 

Make comparisons between loans using APRs but never expect that the APR will be the actual rate that you are charged. You should find this elsewhere in the agreement. It is often not shown and then the agreement is unenforceable.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks,

all that is shown is the APR 29.8% nothing else, so thats unenforceable then? sorry to sound stupid but like to be sure!

All comments are well meant but i am not legally qualified only CAG educated:D

 

 

In the slight chance i have been helpful please click the scales:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the APR is the ONLY rate shown the agreement is unenforceable simply because the APR is never 'the interest rate to be applied' because

 

 

I believe that you are wrong in this. The interest rate is a prescibed term for credit card agreements only.

 

Even under the 2004 regs, this hasn't become a prescribed term and, if the interest rate is missing or incorrect, then the agreement is enforceable on a court order. In this case, I believe the interest rate is correct anyway.

 

Regards

 

nicklea

Link to post
Share on other sites

£3000 over 4 years repayments £115.95 x 48 = £5565.60

they say 29.8% APR

This works out at about £101 per month and £4885 but if you use 40.47% it comes to £5565.60

This is a abuy now pay later agreement but nowhere is there any other maths or charges

 

 

Little confused with the calculations on this one..

 

APR is not an easy calculation. Take a look at page 9

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft144.pdf

Remember if you find anything I say helpful, please click the scales

 

 

tbern123 vs Cabot

  1. Cabot again !!! Urgent Help Needed
  2. Litigation - tbern123 V Cabot Financial (Uk) Limited
  3. No more calls from Cabot... lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

On regulated loan and HP agreements there is a requirement under the 2004 regs to show both the annualised rate of interest as well as the APR. This did not actually come into force until May 2005. If your agreement only shows an APR but is dated prior to May 2005 then this is not in breach of the CCA.

 

Hope that helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicklea

 

The CCA 1974 was very well drafted and you are right that the interest to be applied was only necessary to be shown for running account credit. The APR had not been defined in 1974.

 

 

The 1983 regulations are not as well drafted. However look at Schedule 1

paragraph 9. Under the heading total charge for credit .rate of interest etc it says agreements for fixed sum credit ( except abcd) item 2 the rate of interest on the credit is required.

 

Exceptions abcd and running account credit are dealt with in pararaph 10 where again in item 2 the interest rate is required.

 

Note that the interest charged must be quoted on a per annum basis - it would appear that a monthly rate is not saisfactory and I have and we all have been wrong about this.

 

I do not think the 2004 regulations amended this in any way.

 

So

 

a. The interest rate charged has to be shown and on a per annum

basis

 

b. The APR also has to be disclosed but there is an important exception

 

For the purpose of these regulations it shall be sufficient compliance with the requirement to show the APR if there is included in the document

1) a rate which exceeds the APR by not more than:or

2) a rate which falls short of the ARR by not more than .1

 

 

This makes it quite clear that it is envisioned that the rate charged can and will vary significantly from APR. The most obvious instance is where charges have to be incuded in the APR .

 

It also makes it quite clear that the rate charged is not the APR and that an APR on its own cannot substitute for the rate charged.

 

This is totally in line with the initial purpose of the APR - a measure in percentage terms of the total cost of credit so that borrowers can compare loan offers. It is an advertising (in its broadest sense) term and is pre-agreement (maybe only seonds before signatures) and it is not changed by other interest rates shown in an agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

tbern123.

 

The statutory formula always comes up when discussing the calculation of APR. The reason it is complicated is thst is a legal formula (not understood by lawyers!!) which takes in not only the varying repayment schedules of loans but the compulsory fees that must be taken into account.

 

Fortunately most loans are now repayed sensibly and are without compulsory fees and in these cases the calculation of APR can be done on the Windows scientific calculator and it is no more thn O-level maths. If you want to see how it is done I have posted methods in many places alswhere on CAG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

tbern123.

 

To calculate the APR from the loan amount the amount and frequency of repayments is not difficult but it does require a iterative process which is best done using a simple computer program. An iterative process is a process which gets closer and closer to the correct answer by controlled trail and error. To get an APR you may need thousands of calculations and longhand this is very nearly impossible. A computer can do this in fractions of a second. Much of the complication in the OFT article you quote is because it was written before powerful computers were so readily availabe and there are longhand methods that can be used to shorten the iterative process.

 

If your loan repayments vary along the line or there is a payment holiday to start off you can only do the sums using an iterative process.

 

If however the loan is paid off by say 48 payments by a fixed amount it is often possible to calculate the monthly rate applied from a consideration of the outstanding amount and the interest applied for that month. The APR is easily calculated from the monthly rate.

 

If you are interested PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I do not think the 2004 regulations amended this in any way.

 

 

SI No 1482 (2004) - The Consumer Credit (Agreements)(Amendments) Regulations 2004, which amended the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983.

 

This introduced for the first time the requirement to specify, on fixed sum credit agreements, the rate of interest applied on a per-annum basis.

 

The amendments came into force on 31/5/2005.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicklea

 

However look at Schedule 1 paragraph 9.

 

Unfortunately, schedule 1 does not contain the prescribed terms - that's schedule 6. So it is still enforceable on a court order regardless. This means that the debtor must make the argument as to why he has been prejudiced and why the court should not make an enforcement order.

 

One possible way of doing this may be, if the interest rate shown is inaccurate, to argue that you agreed a loan at x% which would mean that the monthly amount payable was incorrect and so the prescribed terms are correct and it's not enforceable

Link to post
Share on other sites

tbern123.

 

To calculate the APR from the loan amount the amount and frequency of repayments is not difficult but it does require a iterative process which is best done using a simple computer program. An iterative process is a process which gets closer and closer to the correct answer by controlled trail and error. To get an APR you may need thousands of calculations and longhand this is very nearly impossible. A computer can do this in fractions of a second. Much of the complication in the OFT article you quote is because it was written before powerful computers were so readily availabe and there are longhand methods that can be used to shorten the iterative process.

 

If your loan repayments vary along the line or there is a payment holiday to start off you can only do the sums using an iterative process.

 

If however the loan is paid off by say 48 payments by a fixed amount it is often possible to calculate the monthly rate applied from a consideration of the outstanding amount and the interest applied for that month. The APR is easily calculated from the monthly rate.

 

If you are interested PM me.

 

Thanks for the kind offer, sadly I am more then familiar with the calculation of APR and flat rates.

Remember if you find anything I say helpful, please click the scales

 

 

tbern123 vs Cabot

  1. Cabot again !!! Urgent Help Needed
  2. Litigation - tbern123 V Cabot Financial (Uk) Limited
  3. No more calls from Cabot... lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicklea.

 

I am no lawyer though I do not think that matters a great deal as I doubt lawyers understand things much better than we laymen. Certainly thay have taken a very long time to understand that some CCA agreements are unenforceable in court.

 

As far as I can see there is no schedule 6 in the 1983 regualtions. Schedule 6 (as I understand it) is a schedule introduced in the 2004 regs to bring all the financial terms that must be in agreement together and defined them as prescribed terms for the purposes of the act. In other words though their were 'terms' in Schdule 1 of the 1983 regs which had to shown (if they were not shown the agreement was unenforsceable) they were just not called prescibed terms until the 2004 regs.

 

Please correct me if this is wrong!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pelham,

 

Schedule 6 was not introduced by the 2004 regs. Here are the relevant sections from the 2004 regs modifying some of the schedules and you'll see that schedule 6 wasn't touched:-

 

13. For Schedule 4 (forms of statement of protection and remedies available under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to hirers under regulated consumer hire agreements) substitute –

 

14. After Part II of Schedule 5 (forms of signature box) insert –

 

15. In Schedule 7 (provisions relating to the disclosure of the APR) for paragraph 1 substitute –

 

16. - (1) Schedule 8, part 1 (information to be contained in documents embodying regulated modifying agreements varying or supplementing earlier credit agreements) is amended as follows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

I have read through my posts above and it occurred to me that my admission of error in #21 applied tp all my posts. The error was in the source of prescibed terms. Lest there be confusion in peoples minds I wonder if you would comment on thr following.

 

For running account credit.

 

1) The interest to be charged is a prescibed term.

 

2) The interest rate to be charged is not the APR.

 

3) The APR is not a prescibed term.

 

4) If the only interest rate appearing in an agreement is designated APR then the prescribed interest rate to be charged is not present and the agreement is unenforceable automatically.

 

5) The APR should also appear but see 6 below.

 

6) The APR does not need to be shown unless it is .1% below or 1% above another interest rate in the agreement ( which can only be the interest rate to be charged)

 

7) It is very unusual that the interest rate to be charged is equal to the APR - the APR [problem]..

 

8) A recent agreement I have seen showed the APR as 16.9% and the annual interest rate to be charged as 16.9%. On checking the monthly interest rate actually applied to the account it is found to be 1.313%. This is an APR of 16.9% but an annual rate of 16.945%. Is the agreement enforceable? I think not. 16.945% does not equal 16.9%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read through my posts above and it occurred to me that my admission of error in #21 applied tp all my posts. The error was in the source of prescibed terms. Lest there be confusion in peoples minds I wonder if you would comment on thr following.

 

For running account credit.

 

1) The interest to be charged is a prescibed term.

 

2) The interest rate to be charged is not the APR.

 

3) The APR is not a prescibed term.

 

4) If the only interest rate appearing in an agreement is designated APR then the prescribed interest rate to be charged is not present and the aagreement is unenforcible automatically.

 

5) The APR should also appear but see 6 below.

 

6) The APR does not need to be shown unless it is .1% below or 1% above another interest rate in the agreement ( which can only be the interest rate to be charged)

 

7) It is very unusual that the interest rate to be charged is equal to the APR - the APR [problem]..

 

8)A recent agreement I have seen showed the APR as 16.9% and the annual interest rate to be charged as 16.9%. On checking the monthly interest rate actually applied to the account it is found to be 1.313%. This is an APR of 16.9% but an annual rate of 16.945%. Is the agreement enforcible? I think not. 16.945% does not equal 16.9%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...