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

scampjet-v-Citi


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5781 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 all,

 

I would appreciate some input in my fight with Citi.

 

I complaines to FOS in respect of charges back last year and last December recieved a letter to say that Citi had offered to refund £925. This being close to the figure I asked for I accepted and returned the settlement agreement.

 

To date I have not recieved anything and Have been getting on average once every 3 weeks the response that they would send a cheque within 3 weeks.

 

Yesterday. I phoned them and they said that hey were awaiting a copy of my confirmation from FOS and when they recieved it, the could issue a cheque within 7 to ten days. I phoned FOS and they emailed a copy to them again.

 

I phoned Citi again today to confirm that they had recieved and email and the response was that they did,nt know about yesterday but could confirm that they had recieved this aceptance form from FOS last May.

 

I have just got off the phone to FOS and they say that they are going to tell them to sent the payment..........but to first credit.

 

 

My question is...........First credit do not have or have not produced a credit agreement for this account, so should Citi be able to send this money to the balance owed to first credit?

 

Does the right to first appropration of funds apply to this type of case?

Edited by jumpjet
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Scampjet.

 

Cap 1 did the same thing with me, sent the charges I won, back to Lowells, reducing what I still owed.

 

Also Bank of Scotland, they credited the charges I claimed back, to Blair Oliver & Scott, who were chasing me for the money.(I know Blair Oliver & Scott are the 'inhouse' collectors for BOS).

 

I've heard that if there is no CCA agreement, then it's unwise to claim back charges as the Courts look on this as false enrichment.

 

Think it's either one or the other.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi maroondevo52, Thanks for responding.

 

The thing is, I had the charges agreed before I CCA'd 1st credit and therefor 1st credits balance reflected money which should never have been part of the balance. If Citi gave refund to them, then they will be getting £925 more than they should! At the end of the day, its all money off in the end but I am at the stage now where I am considering ending the DMP with cccs and only paying those I have to. Citi passed the debt onto 1st credit a long time ago and I find it annoying that they can do this. This is why I wondered about right of appropriation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott is right about not trying to reclaim on an a/c where the debt is not being paid off because there's no Credit Agreement - that would be having and eating cake !

 

But you have every right to complain that reclaimed charges have been offset against another a/c which is formally "in dispute" because there's no Credit Agree't.

 

I'd get straight back onto the FOS to complain about the proposed offset and the ridiculous time it has taken to finalise this matter.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...