Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes typed it, how would I input it any other way, probably timed out took over half hour. H
    • You typed it in? actually typed it all out? if so, maybe you took too long or something, like session timed out. Does the status show defence filed or no change?
    • Hi just typed all defence clicked next and it's deleted all. Any help
    • I forgot to say, there is one last possibility and that is that they will receive your letter of rejection and simply fold, accept the rejection and refund you. Don't wait too long for this. Seven days maximum – but in that seven days you could send your letter of claim anyway and when that you don't hear from them or when they start mucking around at least you are seven days closer to beginning the legal action – and they will know it (which is the important thing).
    • Okay that is excellent that you have an email between the garage and the warranty company confirming that there is a serious problem with the gearbox. That is very powerful evidence. I think the situation is this: you have sent them a letter of rejection but the reputation of big motoring world is that they won't take a lot of notice and they will try to prevaricate and maybe even blame you. Clearly you don't want the car any more and anyway it sounds as if the cost of repairs is going to be enormous. You don't know if the warranty company is going to step up to the mark but the whole thing is going to take a long time and I understand that you have lost confidence in big motoring world because of this event and also their reputation which you are now discovering on Facebook and on this forum and no doubt elsewhere. On the basis that you don't want the car any more and you want your money back, you need to hurry things along. I think the first thing is that you need to decide if you are prepared to bring a claim in the County Court. Even without the warranty money, the claim is worth more than £10,000. For actions less than £10,000, you bring a "small claim" and this means that even if you lose the case you won't be liable for the other side's costs. If you win the case then not only will you get your money plus interest but also you will recover all of the costs of the action. For actions more than £10,000, you go to something called the "fast track" and in the event that you lose the case, then you could be liable to reimburse the winner some of the costs. This means that in addition to not recovering your own money, you would lose your own court fees and also you would have to to bear the costs of the other side probably something less than £5000 – but as a rough guess. If you bring your court claim then your chances of success are almost 100%. Frankly if you brought a court claim then I can imagine that big motoring world will put their hands up and pay you out rather than face go to court and losing and getting a judgement against them. However, it you need to consider that this is a risk factor – although my view it is a negligible risk factor. If you did bring a court case, it wouldn't be instant. If they put their hands up then it would probably happen very quickly. If they didn't put their hands up then you could take anything up to a year for the matter to be resolved and during that time you would be without your car and without your money and in the middle of litigation. I'm explaining this to you say that you understand how it works. Bring a court case would be really the last resort when everything else has failed. However, I'm quite certain that you would win and it would be stupid of big motoring world to try to resist. In order to bring a court case you would have to send a letter of claim giving them 14 days to accept rejection and organise the refund otherwise you would begin the claim. Don't imagine that you could bluff this. If you did send a letter of claim then you would have to go through with it otherwise you lose all credibility and you might as well pack up and go home. So with this in mind, here are possible courses of action you could take. You can simply wait and see what their reaction to your letter of rejection will be. However they may not reply or else they may find some other reason to delay and of course during that time you will be without your car and without your money blah blah blah, not knowing if big motoring world were going eventually to start acting sensibly and respectfully towards you. The second thing you can do – and I think this has been suggested on Facebook – is that you can go along there and simply make yourself present and talk to other customers and generally speaking make a nuisance of yourself and embarrass them to the point where you would be explaining to other potential customers to be careful, to look on Facebook, and to do some careful research before they put their business to big motoring world. This has a reasonable chance of success although you would have to be careful. You should go accompanied by a friend and there should be no anger, no arguments, nothing that could be considered as being overly aggressive so that big motoring world would have no justification in kicking you out or even worse, calling the police. If you did this, then I would suggest that you record everything on the telephone carried in a pocket. A fully charged battery will probably keep a voice recorder and a telephone going for more than 20 hours or 30 hours. The other person can video any incidents so that everything is clear and you can inform big motoring world then it will be going up on the Internet. If you did this, my favourite option would be to issue the letter of claim giving them 14 days, and then going along to big motoring world with a copy of your letter of rejection and a copy of the exchange between the mechanic and the warranty company and a copy of your letter of claim – all settled together – and probably about 20 or 30 copies in all and I would start handing them out to any customers who came in. Big motoring world will soon get the picture and they will either move your the premises in which case you stand outside and carry on doing it or they will finally give in. Of course there is a chance that they won't give in and they will simply call your bluff – but in that case I think you have no choice other than to follow through with your 14 day threat in the letter of claim and to begin the legal action. At the same time you should be putting up reviews on Google and also trust pilot explaining exactly what has happened and also explaining that the mechanic has confirmed to the warranty company that there is the serious problem, that you have asserted the right to reject and that this is been ignored by big motoring world and that you have now sent a letter of claim and that you will be starting a legal action in 14 days. Once again, don't bluff about the legal action. If you threaten it – then you must mean it – and on day 15 you click of the claim. You don't need a solicitor for any of this. It's all fairly straightforward and of course we will help you all the way that it the decision is yours to make and I think you need to make it fairly quickly. I think the cost of starting an action for about £13,000 is 5% and then also if it goes to trial which I would say is almost impossible – there would be an additional fee. You would claim interest at 8%. A judge might award a lower figure but frankly if you can show that big motoring world is attempting to ride roughshod over your very clear statutory consumer rights, I can imagine that the judge will want to show displeasure by awarding the full 8% which is a pretty good rate – even though it's not compensation for the hassle and the distress you are going through. If you decide to get solicitor, then if you win the case, because it is over £10,000 you will recover some of your costs but you won't recover all of them. If the solicitor begins by having exchanges of letters then I doubt whether you will be up to recover the cost of those and you could easily find that you're chalking up 500 quid or even a thousand simply on initial exchanges of correspondence. Also you need to bear in mind that if after having exchanges with a solicitor, big motoring world cave in – then you definitely won't get those costs back because you won't have gone to court and therefore a judge will not have made the order for payment of those costs. I suggest very strongly that you avoid paying any money for a solicitor and that you do it yourself. It's not a big deal – although you will have to you react quickly to the help we offer on this forum. Also, an additional benefit is that you will learn a lot and you will gain confidence and eventually you will feel good about suing anybody else who gets in your way. Nothing not to like! If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must take control of the solicitor. Most of them prefer to sit in an office writing letters on the clock. If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must instruct the solicitor very firmly that they should send one letter of complaint giving seven days. A second letter – a letter of claim giving 14 days and that they must then begin the action. If you don't do this. If you don't take control then it will simply cost you money, you will be without your car even longer and of course without your money. The whole thing is a nightmare. I think I've laid out the options but please do ask questions. I hope you can see that this is the kind of advice that you won't be getting on Facebook. Nothing against Facebook. It's good as a meeting place and to make people realise that they aren't on their own – but after that the advice given is weak and confusing.  
  • 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

why you shouldnt use section 77/78 CCA 1974 if you want the signed agreement


pt2537
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4915 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

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I dont think that a CCJ means any of the limbs in 78s3(a)...because of course a CCJ can be satified and/or unsatisfied!!!..otherwise it would mean that a CCJ could NEVER be enforced...a contradiction in terms

 

My understanding of s78 3(a) is in connection with an agreement that has been repaid or where an agreement has been written off....It cannot go as far as CCJ because that would mean enforcement and non compliance with a CCA REQUEST is totally the opposite UNENFORCEABILITY whilst the default continues...

 

A CCJ would logically have meant that MgGuffick was decided wrongly...

 

m2ae

Link to post
Share on other sites

A CCJ cannot fall into any of the limbs under s78 3(a) because a CCJ can still mean that sums can be enforced through a number of methods..plus the section refers explicitly to an agreement NOT judgement

 

(a) an agreement under which no sum is, or will or may become, payable by the debtor, or ....

 

Also they have shot themselves in the foot by providing you initially with a non-compliant copy and then a compliant one...this tends to show a stitch up more than anything else supplemented by fallacious arguments from lawyers..BUT the statute, MgGuffick and reasonings I have made show it for what it IS

 

m2ae

 

m2ae

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul

Yes, this is certainly what is happening, and it is ALL the lenders can do at the moment. Why? If you don't have original documents or you do but they are not compliant, all you can do, which is all they are doing is work with the Recons and Witness Statements. You do this and hope that the debtor does not have the knowledge to defend against this lower level of evidence.

 

If they had compliant originals they'd be shutting folk up with certified copies of them left, right and centre!

 

I mean, why would you send the signature page of an application form together with a bundle of recon documents to present PTs and T&Cs? Only because you don't have something better which is the undisputable properly executed original or a certified copy thereof.

 

Secondary evidence and hearsay evidence can certainly be persuasive. Especially when there are no positive assertions from the debtor, who is of course a first hand witness in the matter!!!

 

This is why it's up to the debtor to fight hard to dismantle the credibility of the claimant's testimony, using every valid argument, when they rely upon recons and Witness Statements (having admitted to losing the original etc)

 

I think if I ever get confronted with a creditor using a 'recon' agreement, I will produce my own 'recon' (not enforceable of course!) and present it to the judge explaining that I have mislaid the original, but this is an honest and true copy from my records and recollections. After all I am a better witness than the creditors witness because I actually was there at the time when I signed it and I know and remember well what I signed!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats the best course of action when presented with a loan agreement by the bank which post dates draw down of funds by some 3 weeks (print date, copy signature & execution date).......... but the bank would like you to believe that this same agreement was correctly executed and refers to funds credited in the past? And yep, I know time travel isnt possible but the bank must think it is.

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites

Baz

I've often thought of doing this - but with a twist - where I DO have the original (but haven't admitted to it) and presenting my own reconstructed version - which is "what I recollect and what I would have been prepared to sign etc. etc. base don other agreements I did sign". If the judge buys their fraudulent version over mine then I ask for time to pull my attic apart - as I believe I'll have it somewhere - and voila - my version turns up - exposes the bankers' fraud and puts their credibility out the window. Only thing is the risk that I then have to pay up based on the presence of the signed original (unless I never signed my copy?).

 

 

Gee

Time travel IS possible. Einstein said so himself! Since bankers earn a lot more than Einstein ever did, they must be a lot cleverer :wink: - after all they can "earn" in a few minutes what it takes a normal person a whole year of real work (even a lifetime in some cases :-x) or is this just theft and corruption and not time travel that causes this? :???:

 

BD

Edited by Bigdebtor
Link to post
Share on other sites

Baz

I've often thought of doing this - but with a twist - where I DO have the original (but haven't admitted to it) and presenting my own reconstructed version - which is "what I recollect and what I would have been prepared to sign etc. etc. base don other agreements I did sign". If the judge buys their fraudulent version over mine then I ask for time to pull my attic apart - as I believe I'll have it somewhere - and voila - my version turns up - exposes the bankers' fraud and puts their credibility out the window. Only thing is the risk that I then have to pay up based on the presence of the signed original (unless I never signed my copy?).

 

 

BD

 

assuming your original is enforceable !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi m2ae

 

I am not familiar with McGuffick so should probably get my skates on and do some reading. I agree with you that they have shot themselves in the foot - neither of the agreements is actually compliant I don't think, at least not according to the Wacksman benchmark in my judgment! After about 15 years i would expect to see an original and the variations that allowed them to impose penalty charges on the account.

 

Secondly, you're absolutely right that the subsection of s.78 they refer to talks about an agreement not a CCJ. Unfortunately, they haven't yet developed their argument...

 

Basa & BD, I should definitely consider your approach - afterall, there is no reason why anyone reconn can be more valid than the other!!!LOL

 

thanks for your comments, guys.

 

atom

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basa & BD, I should definitely consider your approach - afterall, there is no reason why anyone reconn can be more valid than the other!!!LOL

 

thanks for your comments, guys.

 

atom

 

My comment was a little 'tongue in cheek', but I suppose if a judge was being an arse and insisting on accepting a recon for enforcement a move like that might draw attention to his stupidity. Or get you thrown in the Tower!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine was a bit TIC too - but to be abit more serious and clarify

1. If I definitely had an unenforceable original I would produce it and so expose them as liars, if their recon didn't match.

2. If I had an enforceable original - but no one had signed my copy (quite likely) then I might show this. Surely they would then need to produce the signed version to enforce.

3. If I only had an enforceable signed original I might try my luck with my recon - using other paperwork I might have accepted (without PT's) to back up what I had been prepared to sign with other OC's. Nothing to los ein this situation?

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

can somebody please point me in the direction of pt,s letter please or a similar one requesting proof of a properly exectuted credit agreement.

I've seen one posted up before but having trouble finding it and i'm getting bogged down by dca's who are fobbing me off with the carey implications.

cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

blueotter

 

The chances are that your agreement has been varied...so DONT ask for a s78 that can be 'constructed from other sources that existed at the time of the executed agreement...ASK for a copy DIRECTLY from the original ITSELF AND and up to date agreement containing the current varied terms...

 

Look to Carey 'unilateral powers to vary agreement'

 

Paras 62-124..BUT first go straight to Para 108.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But before you do ASK if they have a SIGNED EXECUTED ORIGINAL in existence from which to copy THAT copy from..because if they have not ...Then how can can YOUR copy be a copy taken directly from that executed original.This route excludes the creditors from 'reconstituting agreements from 'other sources'.

 

m2ae

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remeber that under copies of documents and cancellation notices regs 1983 they can omit a signature from a copy...BUT ask them if this is the case first..BECAUSE if they say they have a signsture then there is no real harm in them providing you with a copy of that signed document....and if they say they have not then well they are stuffed and misleading you under CPUTR 2008 Reg 5 and 6

 

m2ae

Link to post
Share on other sites

m2ae

 

Some great advice - but could you put a couple of paras together with EXACTLY what we should say to ensure we get a copy of a signed copy and not a recon (Doesn't this just mean CON AGAIN?)

 

Keep up the good work!

 

BD

 

Erm.... but you don't really want them to find a copy of the original signed Agreement, do you? 8-) Just ask them to confirm whether they hold or have ever held a true copy of a signed Agreement pertaining to the account and of not, to confirm that in their response (CPUTR, 1988)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would YOU believe what they say without proof? Of course we don#t want them to HAVE it - but we DO want to kmow for sure WHETHER or not they DO have it.

 

No signed agreement = no enorceable debt and - and the converse also applies - so important to know which.

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

would you believe what they say without proof? Of course we don#t want them to have it - but we do want to kmow for sure whether or not they do have it.

 

No signed agreement = no enorceable debt and - and the converse also applies - so important to know which.

 

Bd

 

cputr 2008 :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4915 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...