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

Paying through arrangement, should I reclaim charges? **WON**


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5784 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 everyone,

 

Firstly, thanks for everyones hard work and support, have done alot of reading and I wish I knew some of this stuff in my 'debt' heyday!

 

I have one arrangement left which is a default CC account with Egg, payments now made to Intrum DCA. The amount left is large enough so that if demanded I would NOT be able to pay back in one go.

 

If I claimed my 'returned DD's' and 'over limit' charges is there a chance egg would demand the outstanding amount on the account?? I am happily paying off a menial amount every month. The charges total upto around £260 not inc interest.

 

SHould I do it, whats the chance they will ask for full settlement? Thanks for reading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would Egg retaliate with counter threats? They used to do this up to November 2006, but not since.

 

Chances are Egg have sold the debt onto Intrum (Justicia?). If so, unless Intrum in despair pass the bundle back, Egg will no longer be involved with your payment arrangement agreed with Intrum.

 

Egg is answerable to the law for penalty charges which they (allegedly) unlawfully levied on your account, and they are obliged to refund to your good self, not to Intrum. They generally prefer to refund into the bank sortcode and account you nominate, in preference to sending you a cheque.

 

With the Test Case still staying tens of thousands of others, the Small Claims Court is no longer clogged up. Yesterday came news of an Egg reclaim being won in court within 5 weeks of lodging same. Alternatively a CAG letter proven to be effective has been known to win within 1-3 weeks. Your choice. -- good luck!

 

03 weeks - 22 JAN 2008 - WINNING TEMPLATE LETTER - andrew_nwide - WON!! Egg Smashed £900

Edited by Mistermind

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven, Mistermind,

 

Thanks for the informed opinions. MM thanks for the template link, I came across it during research n have it bookmarked for future ref!

 

I assume the debt has been 'sold' to Westcot (sorry got my DCA's mixed up). However, got my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) statements thru. Now, the account was opened in 2002 and default enterd on my Credit File 2004, yet statements are dated TO DATE. ie they have the monthly amount credited to the egg account every month albeit labled as 'DCA Payment'.

 

Through my reading of various posts I understand that DCA's can 'buy' the debt OR act as 'collecting agents' is this correct? Does what I have explained seem like they are merely 'collecting'?

 

Now that I have explained further are there any different opinions? Thanks for reading! Any kind of knowledge appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

Through my reading of various posts I understand that DCA's can 'buy' the debt OR act as 'collecting agents' is this correct?
Absolutely correct
Does what I have explained seem like they are merely 'collecting'?
It does sound like it

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks S4064,

 

Im in two minds now as I really dont want to 'rock the boat' as it were, but I will carry on researching. Thanks again!

 

Got another question, dont laugh but the following paragraph (below) was in my SAR, taken from templates, I know its asking for something but what exactly? Egg have not answered this question in the reply with the statements.

 

" Additionally, where there has been any event in my account history over this period which has required manual intervention by any member of your staff, or any other person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention, or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to my banking business with you."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What this is for is to ask them whether there has been any event relating to late payments, etc where an actual human has contacted you rather than a computer. The relevance is that contact by a computer costs them about 35p (and most of that is the stamp) whereas they might actually be able to justify a few quid if a human wrote to you. It is an opportunity for them to justify the £16 or whatever. If they have chosen to ignore it, more fool them :p

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it does look now as if your account has not been closed, but left open using Westcot as collection agents. This increases the possibility that Egg may pay refunds into your still-open Egg account reducing the balance. As they took unlawful charges from said account, hard to argue why they should not put it back whence it was taken.

 

As for victimisation and retaliation, the experience of the forum is that this does NOT happen any more. If it had done, then the scores of Egg cardholders in varying stages of default who did reclaim (successfully) will have screamed in the forum -- which they did not.

 

Time was Egg had a fearsome lawyer called Nelson St Clare, who provoked Bankfodder's post in the sticky section "Is Egg counter-claiming against you". But Mr St Clare went in 2006, and with him has gone hardball Egg.

 

Cheers!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol cheers for the informed advice.

 

i have decided to write asking for a refund and querying the default notice, it is the only blemish on an otherwise perfect file. yet it counts against me nearly everytime, i will send the prelim today (16/05/08) and keep the thread updated.

 

Thanks again!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

UPDATE

 

Egg will refund the £260 back onto the account, which I guess is fair as I owe them £6k. Took 2 weeks from prelim, they replied within 7 days so i sent an lba giving them further 7 days. I doctered the andrew n_wide letter.

 

I did ask for a copy of my agrreement AND default notice with the prelim (2 weeks ago) but by mistake i said i would give them 28 days to comply lol (my fault should have read up on my statutory right, ie 12 days!) I havnt recieved anything yet, should I give them the 28 days I said i would?!!

 

Finally a huge thank you to for the help from this forum, donation will follow.

 

I am now chasing Lloyds for current account AND credit card, will keep you guys posted in the correct section

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could write and tell them that, as they have not complied with your s78(1) CCA 1974 request within the statutory period, they are in default and, under s78(6) of the Act, must not attempt to enforce the alleged debt until they comply. This means that, not only must they not demand payment, they must not add any interest or charges and they must not communicate any information concerning the account to any third party including, but not limited to, any credit reference agencies. Any of these actions would be a summary offence under the Act.

 

(title changed)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Thanks UPDATE

 

I wrote to egg telling them they are in default, giving them a further month. I have written to the CRA's stating that egg were in default and asking them to remove the 'default notice' from egg.

 

awaiting replies . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...