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

Any Opinions Please?


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5437 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

As usual with Crap1, an application form containing non of the prescribed terms as you say:(

 

Send the idiots the following;

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re:− Account/Reference

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

 

I have received the documents you sent and in the accompanying letter you you have confirmed this to be a true copy of the credit agreement that exists in relation to this account. As you have sent this document in response to a formal request under Section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, this statement is now binding on you as per section 172 of the Act.

 

I must inform you that the information received does not meet the requirements of a properly executed credit agreement under the 1974 Act.The document received does not contain any of the prescribed terms as set out in the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) Schedule 6 Column 2.

 

Since this document does not contain the required prescribed terms it is rendered unenforceable by s127 (3) consumer Credit Act 1974

 

 

The absence of a properly executed credit agreement prevents you from:

Adding interest to the account

Taking any enforcement action on the account

Issuing any default notices or registering any default marker with a credit reference agency

This situation is backed by case law from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (House of Lords) the highest court in the land. Your attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the agreement cannot be enforced.

 

 

 

 

 

Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633, Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice Chancellor said:

The creditor must…be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid

In the case of Dimond v Lovell [2000] UKHL 27, Lord Hoffmann said:

Parliament intended that if a consumer credit agreement was improperly executed, then subject to the enforcement powers of the court, the debtor should not have to pay.

I would also point out that if you continue to pursue me for this debt while it is dispute you will be in breach of the OFT guidelines.

 

 

 

 

What I Require

I require all correspondence in writing from here on; any persistent attempts to contact me by phone will be reported to trading standards

I require you to produce a compliant copy of my credit agreement to confirm I am liable to you or any organisation, which you represent for this alleged debt, if you cannot do so I require written clarification that this is the case.

Should you ignore this request I will report you to the Office of Fair Trading to consider your suitability to hold a credit licence in addition to a complaint to Trading Standards, as you will be in breach of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40

 

Since the agreement is unenforceable it would be in everyone’s interest to consider the matter closed and for you to write the alleged debt off. I suggest you give serious consideration to this as any attempt of litigation will be vigorously defended and I will counter claim for all quantifiable damages

 

 

Yours Faithfully

Your name Printed

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...