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

cca court case looming


oggy1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5598 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

Hello Oggy1!

 

My gut feeling is to hold fire on taking the MBNA to Court, as it seems easier to Defend than to Attack.

 

They also do not seem keen to actually go to Court, despite all the silly Threats they make. Most likely is they will Sell, and then you can see off any DCAs that appear with CCA Requests bearing in mind the new CPUTR that came into force on 26th May 2008.

 

So, my guess is your problem boils down now to two main things:

 

(1) Harassment via Telephone.

 

(2) Adverse Information against you over on the CRAs.

 

If you have not already seen it, I'd advise you to take a look at this Thread:

 

EXPERIAN... The final battle commences

 

This is because I feel your main issue is to get the adverse Information removed from the CRAs. The above could be one way.

 

The Harassment is hassle, I know, so you need to fight back against that. Log/Record all Calls, but also aim to get as many Full Names of MBNA Employees calling you as possible. The Police will take action against people, but won't against a Company. If you gather enough names, then you can point the Police towards an MBNA Director/Manager/CEO, as they can't hide behind the claim that it's just one rogue employee acting in isolation.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hello Oggy1!

 

any ideas anyone???

 

Yep, tell them they can shove their costs where the sun don't shine.

 

What Account would this be?

 

If it has been Defaulted and Terminated, then there is no longer a live Account. All that remains is a lump sum Debt, and what you need to establish is if that lump sum Debt is Enforceable, Partly Enforceable or Unenforceable.

 

To work that out, you need to know if whoever is coming after you for this has:

 

(1) The Original properly executed Regulated Consumer Credit Agreement.

 

(2) Clear evidence that a lawful Default Notice was issued and Served in good time to be compliant within the Statutory Timescales to have been given an opportunity to remedy the Default.

 

(3) Clear evidence that the Debt was lawfully Assigned (that's if it's a DCA pond dweller that is coming to haul your ass into Court to Enforce).

 

If anyone does send you a Court Claim and the Agreement is missing and/or looks dubious, then be ready to use CPR 31.14 straight away before a Track is Allocated. See this excellent Thread:

 

Getting Them To Reveal Their Vitals. Using CPR 31.14 to Your Advantage

 

Hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...