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 
        • 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

Response to our Egg CCA request - Please Help !


cosalt
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5354 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 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

From Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983:

 

 

Just gets better and better-thanks for pointing that out for me Basa-I have been dredging through it to find this part cheers.

 

The agreement does go on to say "In working out APRs, we have ignored any changes we may make to the interest rates, handling fees or any other charges which we introduce or vary at any time by giving you notice under condition 12"

 

Kind of owning up to the fact that they haven`t put the word variable in there.

 

 

Another question, it may have already been answered-if so sorry.

 

 

The agreement says at the end"agreement will only be binding on us when we have completed with our final cheks and other searches, and you have signed and returned the credit agreement to us"

 

I truly don`t understand how it can be binding on me but not them upon signing the agreement

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I truly don`t understand how it can be binding on me but not them upon signing the agreement

 

Agreeing to the contract puts the cardholder under no obligations to spend any money whatsoever and under no risk to lose anything. The T&Cs stipulate that the cardholder is free to terminate the agreement at any future date (then pay the outstanding balance if any). The cardholder is thus not bound to the agreement either.

 

After Egg receives the cardholder's signature I understand they make a final check with the alleged employer to verify the claim of employment. From the moment Egg makes themselves bound to the agreement they stand the risk of losing money, but not so the cardholder. The two positions of risk are not symmetrical.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a bit of an admission here folks :oops:

 

The term 'variable' is only a requirement for agreements after 31 May 2005.

 

Sorry. :oops::oops::oops:

 

But there was still the requirement for any 'charges' to be stated (which they aren't. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There`s another two lifeboats gone then, nevermind-I still don`t have the money to pay them.

 

We still have the 'Approved Limit' and (I believe) no mention of 'charges on default' terms to go with. :)

 

Chin up :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

My wifes card has now been passed to ARC, looks like CD UK have given up !

 

I think I have seen on here a 'bemused' letter, anyone know where its is so I can send it to ARC ?

 

Cosalt

 

Is this it:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/174170-mrs-creation-2.html#post2002854

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading threads on EGG CCA, I have one and it is the same as other CAGGERS, with an approved limit???

 

Is it valid or not?? Straight answer as there seems to be some confusion over this, and I want to get a letter back to the DCA;)

LilythePink

If you liked what I said, and if it helped in any way, please tip my scales..... thank you:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I`m told that the judgement on this case-ie "credit" and only the word "credit" will suffice etc wasn`t about a credit card. The financier involved doesn`t supply credit cards and never has. (source The Penalty Charges forum). Is this true?

 

 

I know there are an awful lot of very bright people on here-I can`t seem to find anything except a brief paragraph which tells me nothing.

Edited by lollipop73
Link to post
Share on other sites

I`m told that the judgement on this case-ie "credit" and only the word "credit" will suffice etc wasn`t about a credit card. The financier involved doesn`t supply credit cards and never has. (source The Penalty Charges forum). Is this true?

 

I know there are an awful lot of very bright people on here-I can`t seem to find anything except a brief paragraph which tells me nothing.

 

If you have another look on that thread you will see that PT has added some more information - and claimed to have won 5 cases in court against Egg using a combination of the Central Trust vs Spurway case plus one of the Wilson cases (not sure which one).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody who is fighting Egg based on the "approved" vs "credit" limit arguments, please note that we are bringing this issue into my friend's case, which was originally only concerned with PPI allegedly bought online:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/178357-militant-consumer-challenges-egg.html

 

They have just responded to say that they are investigating our complaint - I will let you know the outcome of their deliberations!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I send the "not an enforceable agreement", and point out the approved limit bit. or should I wait and see the outcome of your fight first:confused:

LilythePink

If you liked what I said, and if it helped in any way, please tip my scales..... thank you:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...