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

Help with Me Vs Capquest


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5057 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 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

stolen from pt. he puts it so much better

 

 

Simple

 

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

In respect of the credit agreement you have disclosed on the XXXXXXX 2009

 

After seeking legal advice from a Consumer Credit Law specialist i can comment as follows.

 

The agreement you disclosed is improperly executed, it is not compliant primarily with s61(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the consequences are that as it stands the agreement is unenforceable and requires an order of the court pursuant to section 65(1) CCA 1974 to be remedy this problem. you are invited to make such an application for the said order.

 

Upon such an application i will rely upon the following points

 

The agreement is a fixed sum credit agreement, the rate of interest under the agreement is fixed for the term of the loan, there are no items entering into the charge for credit which are likely to be subject to change or variation therefore the agreement requires a term stating the Total Charge for credit with or without a list of its constituent parts, the agreement does not contain this term and therefore breaches Regulation 2 and Schedule 1 Para 9 Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 1983.

 

The agreement must as a consequence of para 9, also include a term stating the total amount payable, again this agreement does not contain such information and therefore the agreement also breaches Reg 2 and Schedule 1 para 11 Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 1983 and therefore the agreement does not comply with the regulations made by the secretary of state under the powers given by s60(1) of the 1974 Act and accordingly the agreement doesn ot comply with the strict requirements of s61(1)(a) Consumer Credit Act nor did it comply with s61(1) © Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

These breachs are clearly prejudicial to me as on entering into the agreement i was not givne the informatiuon that the Consumer Credit Act required to be made clear, i was not aware of the true cost of borrowing.

 

I would further highlight that xxxxxx egg subscribes to the Banking Code, as a requiremento f the code, they are required to lend responsibly and they clearly have failed in their duty under the code

 

my contention is that the court should not make an enforcement order, my authority for this contention would primarily be the case of Wlaker v SPPL in the Chester High Court before HHJ Derek Halbert. however if the court were minded to make an order for enforcement my argument would fall directly upon Rank Xerox Finance Limited vs Hepple CCLR 1994 1 and in this case the court taking into account a single breach of schedule 1 Agrement Regs reduced the amount of debt from £5000 to £500 to compensate the debtor for the prejudice caused

 

in view of this and in view of the fact you require an order from the court to enforce this agreement as clearly set out within the act, and the House of Lords in Wilson and First County Trust 2003 UKHL 40, i would invite your proposals to settle my dispute. i would also advise that i am informed that , i am able to apply to the court to consider this matter pursuant to section 142(1) CCA 1974 if no suitable agreement can be met.

 

however i trust this will not be necessary

 

I look forward to your settlement proposals

 

Sleep well

  • Haha 1

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...