Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Firstly, in response to your questions: If you are rejecting the vehicle for defects then it is certainly the responsibility to cover all of the expenses incurred in returning the car to them and frankly they should be responsible for the collection. The consumer rights act does not refer to this and so we have to resort to the common law of contract in respect of which, the seller will be responsible for all of the losses/expenses incurred as a direct result of their breach of contract. In terms of recovering a rate per mile for the use of the vehicle which you have had in the first 30 days – the wisdom seems to be that no they can't. After 30 days it's a different matter. However, once again the consumer rights act is silent on this but the motoring ombudsman seems to say that they are not entitled to recover anything for the usage of the vehicle during the first 30 days if it has been rejected for defects during that period. Once again the consumer rights act is silent. However, it will be prudent for you to provide your own inspection. If you haven't understood yet, Big Motoring World is a car dealership which is self-serving in its interests and is not customer facing and is turning out in respect of customers who buy defective vehicles, to be pretty untrustworthy and very defensive. I have no doubt that lots of customers by vehicles very successfully and are happy but what we are seeing here and also on the Facebook complaints page is that when things go wrong – Big Motoring World are totally unsupportive. You could try to back if you want – but referring to the above point, you should get your own independent inspection from a reputable source. A VW specialist dealer. The information we have is that if you simply return it to BMW, they may carry out some kind of inspection and they may then report back to you that there was no such fault or else they will say that they have discovered a fault but they repaired it and that you are not obliged to take the car back. It would not be a good idea to take this vehicle back. You absolutely need to get rid of it and give your business a some other company which is apparently more reliable – although you need to do some solid research. To add to this – and I suppose you won't be happy with this criticism – I never understand anybody who buys a vehicle a hundred miles away or so. It is asking for trouble. So many people do this and a lot of them come a cropper simply because of the mileages involved in returning the car even for a minor repair. Here is a video for you to watch. It may be too late for you but others will visit this thread – hopefully before they buy their vehicles – and they will learn something about how to survive the trauma of a used car purchase. also, make sure that you have read and understood our used car guide. You won't really enjoy what you read, very much that you can consider that they are lessons for the future – and of course anybody else who visits this thread should benefit from your unfortunate experience.
    • Yes, if she outs you it should take her out of the loop. However I don't know for sure, because I understand there's a time limit to do this and don't know if its a statutory thing under POFA or just someting the they make up. Maybe LFI could comment?
    • Thread moved to Debt Collection Agencies Forum. I'm pretty sure a PP Credit debt of that age is under PayPal EU and is out of jurisdiction but I've flagged this for my site colleagues to advise further.   .  
    • My Wife has today received a 6 page letter of claim from Overdales regarding a Paypal Credit Debt, with "30 days to prevent legal action". She took this out in 2016/17. She had been paying it off with Paypal up until 2020 and stopped the payments. She received a letter from Overdales in 2022 (ignored) and heard nothing since, up until the last 2 or 3 months she has been bombarded with letters, phone calls and texts from Lowells (again ignored). We have been married 5 years and the letter is addressed to her maiden name. Does she just reply using the tick boxes or do we need to send them a separate CCA request?  
    • Hey Dave, yeah shes happy to crack on, they will obviously continue pursuing regardless, Im also happy for her to out me, as soon as she does, is that the end of it for her??
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
      • 160 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
  • Recommended Topics

egg demanding ID


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5438 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

they have (i presume) already been in touch with you by letter, so why now do they want your ID ?

 

I wouldnt give them anything that will help them.

 

Notts

As a great man once said " All Men Can Fly But Some Only in One Direction"

 

Notts

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd tell them that the clock is running on the statutory deadline to supply the copy agreement and that you will be making a complaint to Trading Standards and the OFT if they don't comply.

 

If they are satisfy themselves as to your identity for the purposes of chasing you for money then they can supply you with information to satisfy you as to the validity of the debt!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing in the Consumer Credit Act about a creditor being required to verify your identity before supplying a copy of your agreement.

 

If they are now concerned about your ID then why weren't they when they were chasing the debt?

I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send this letter here by recorded delivery -

 

Dear Sirs,

 

RE Account NO XXXXXXXX

 

Thank you for your letter dated xx/xx/2007 the contents of which are noted

 

In your letter you make reference to requiring my signed authorisation before you comply. I draw your attention to the fact that the Consumer Credit Act 1974 does not require that i supply you a copy of my signature before you comply with my S78 request.

 

If it is for Data Protection purposes then i can happily supply you with documentation to substantiate my identity to you.

 

However please note that to date you have happily sent statements and correspondence containing extensive sensitive private information to my address. I have to ask if you are concerned that you are corresponding with the correct person why has it taken so long to raise this?

 

As you are aware, disclosing data without adequate checks of identity is contrary to the 7th principal of data protection, listed in schedule 1 of the Data protection Act 1998:

 

7. Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data.

 

My request for a true copy of my credit agreement under section 77/78 was made on xx/xx/2007 and the 12 working days for your compliance expire on xx/xx/2007. I note that there is no provision that removes the requirements of the act to provide this information on time, even if you are unsure of my identity.

 

i look forward to receiving the documentation requested

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh they are crafty! Did the same to me after wrongly issuing a DN whilst a/c in default of CCA request, with the crafty request in BOLD "please re-submit your request with proof of ID"

I told them it was not required by Act etc etc and that "my original formal request still stands as dated"

Don't give them an inch Shamay

Elsa x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...