Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The finance company has a 50% stake (legal Owner) in the deal so I would certainly involve them. As for the outstanding £3635 bill thats owing to Mercedes in Croydon I wouldn't be in a rush to settle that just yet and keep it in abeyance as leverage.  Where are you at with Doves in Horsham ?
    • or go really bold ... Further to my request for a copy of the agreement you refer to on ( date) I made a section 78 request pursuant to the Credit Consumer Act 1974 to which you have yet to reply or respond. Pursuant to the Credit Consumer act 1974 section 78 (6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)— (a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement.
    • Pers I'd stop paying the lot and get each defaulted by a dn issuance.  Defaults can't hurt future renting no Only ccj's Can't keep saying the same answers.    Dx        
    • Ok thank you. That’s where we are getting confused, as we’re not sure where we stand legally. But we’re still unsure who we should be going to now, the dealer or the finance company? I’m assuming the evidence we have (the reports from Mercedes) showing that the fault was there when we purchased would be sufficient to prove this? To be honest we would prefer to send the car back completely as are now concerned more problems may arise.
    • No no - I would complain via the CEO and Directors Office.     They sorted it in less than 24 hours for me. Complaint closed and compo issued. Info removed from CRA This morning. Credit Karma updated for me instantly almost.   
  • 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
×
×
  • Create New...