Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Under the consumer rights act 2015, if a defect manifests itself within 30 days and you have a right to return the vehicle for a full refund. If any defect manifests itself within the first six months of ownership then you have a right to return the vehicle for a full refund subject to the retailers right to carry out a repair. If the retailer declines to repair or if the repair fails then you have the right to return. The problem here is that you have to assert their right. It's a bit ridiculous – but you have to do let them know preferably in writing that you are asserting your rights under the consumer rights act either the 30 day right or the six month right. I suppose that you haven't done this – which would be quite understandable because most people don't know that these rights exist and that they are subject to these conditions – the condition that the right must be inserted. It is frankly ridiculous. The dealers know it and we have lots of instances of this company delaying appointments et cetera and our strong suspicion is that they are simply trying to run their customers out of time. On the basis that you haven't asserted your rights, we now have to look to ordinary contract law. You are entitled to purchase a vehicle which is of satisfactory condition and which remains that way for a reasonable period of time. Clearly it is in satisfactory. They are blaming you. Has your independent inspection identified the reason for the defect? This will be important because as you have seen BMW are already saying it is down to your driving and you are going to have to produce evidence that it wasn't down to your driving and the you drove it absolutely reasonably and it was simply the condition of the car. Have you been without the car for any period of time. Is it driveable now? If the car was off the road for a substantial amount of time and was still off the road then you would be able to argue that this is a fundamental breach of contract and that you have been deprived of substantially the whole benefit of the contract and therefore you will be entitled to treat the contract as breached by Big Motoring World and insist on cancelling the contract. It may be that you will eventually be obliged to keep the car but have the repairs paid for. Have you had any quotations for the work that needs doing? I asked you questions about the MOT – but you haven't responded.
    • A 'violent left wing mob', comprised of a chap in a red hoody with a damp polystyrene coffee cup and a bit of wet cement, gets nowhere near cowering frightened farage some distance away on top of his double decker bus .. as farages security and support seem to film the incident grinning     Farage bravely flinches, grimaces and seems to almost burst into tears as the 'objects managed to travel a part of the way toward his position on top of his bus. His reactions honed by having a bit of milk splash him at a prior incident allow him to swiftly fall into a protective cower and grimace .. .. Sometime after, once the mob of 1 had been safely bundled away, farage apparently wipes his eyes of tears, and rising from his cowed and frightened pose, bravely shouts “I will not be bullied or cowed by a violent left-wing mob who hate our country.” .. however few they may comprise of.   https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/nigel-farage-cement-barnsley-reform-uk-b2560501.html  
    • According to Parkopedia parking is limited to two hours.  I don't know how accurate this is though. What were you doing there for four hours?
    • no its friday 21st by 4pm if you'd done it properly and read the sticky in post 2 it clearly says: ^^^^^ NOTE : WHEN CALCULATING THE TIMELINE - PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE DATE ON THE CLAIMFORM IS ONE IN THE COUNT [example: Issue date 01.03.2014 + 19 days (5 days for service + 14 days to acknowledge) = 19.03.2014 + 14 days to submit defence = 02.04.2014] = 33 days in total Date of issue XX + 19 days ( 5 day for service + 14 days to acknowledge) = XX + 14 days to submit defence = XX (33 days in total)  if your defence filing date falls on a W/End, you must file by friday @4PM  
    • Have had a read up just to double check last day to file defence is 24 June (claim form date is 22 May)
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Invalid Default Notices


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4976 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 5.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

who puts they're interpretation on what you have written above ?

 

1 you ?

2 the lender?

3 the judge ?

 

if i was pushed into a guess personally i would go for 3

 

wp3

 

I went out of my way to provide you with the legal authority for the creditor to terminate the agreement

 

the least you could do, if this is an honest debate and not a "wind up" is provide me with the legal authority for your proposition that the creditor cannot lawfully terminate a credit agreement

 

i am waiting

Link to post
Share on other sites

As with all things in life there is only one thing that is certain DEATH.

No matter how water tight you think your argument is in court, the wrong Judge on the wrong day and your stuffed.

 

I know this is true, been to court with a terminally ill freind.

 

No CCA, invalid default, unlawful termination, but still lost.

Judgement granted on the strengh of a cut in half credit card with the debtor signiture on.

 

You take your chances on the day, all you can do is hope the Judge is not a bespecticaled baffoon like we got.

 

Justice was done though as he died 6 weeks after the hearing so they got nothing.

 

RIP Terry

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am always up for a good debate, thats how we learn.

 

my point is this, never mind what you think is right in law there is always another view to the same point and it is the judge that makes the final decision.

 

as we have seen lately in the big test cases and also by members on here there have been some shocking results so it isn't what you or me think is right ultimately it is the judge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am always up for a good debate, thats how we learn.

 

my point is this, never mind what you think is right in law there is always another view to the same point and it is the judge that makes the final decision.

 

as we have seen lately in the big test cases and also by members on here there have been some shocking results so it isn't what you or me think is right ultimately it is the judge.

 

I am more than happy to debate, however i feel SURE we are at cross purposes here so can i take a step back

 

i corrected a statement you made in post 1117 when you said:-

 

lawfully or unlawfully one party cannot terminate only a court can do that

 

you have to understand that many new caggers can be easily misled into believing that such a statement is fact and they could get themselves into hot water or costs by presuming that to be correct and challenging perfectly lawful terminations

 

My point was that IF the creditor has a valid agreement, valid DN, has complied with all that is asked of him under the CCA then of COURSE he can lawfully terminate an agreement

 

CLEARLY if there are faults or failings then the (attempted) termination would be unlawful

 

You really must offer more than just your opinion for making such a statement or at least qualify that it is only your opinion if you are unable to substantiate the statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point i was making in this statement.

(lawfully or unlawfully one party cannot terminate only a court can do that

If they lawfully terminate and then claim the benefits of s88 then it is still up to the judge.

 

my case for example they went for possession but the judge suspended it.

they had a right under s88 but the judge didn't grant what they wanted,

so effectively the court ordered that the agreement went on.

carry on making monthly payments same terms and conditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, i just read your thread and as i suspected you had a dodgy DN and therefore the purported termination was an UNLAWFUl attempt to terminate.

 

had that DN been compliant then the creditors termination would have been lawful.

 

as to the other issues well that's another matter

 

I see that they had a suspended order so i presume that they have obtained a ccj and the court has ordered you to make payments and that if you do so the application to take the house is suspended

 

this is not the judge ordering the agreement to continue it is the judge ordering the arrangement through the court to continue

 

in view of your payments after the unlawful DN you MIGHT find it difficult to argue that you had accepted the unlawful repudiation.

 

The creditor will argue that as the DN was not valid and he was therefore not lawfully entitled to terminate the agreement- therefore the termination itself was not valid and so the agreement endures and he lives to issue another DN.

 

His attempt to terminate unlawfully does not AUTOMATICALLY terminate the agreement- you would have to do some "thing" or act to show that you had accepted his unlawful action

 

if you did not communicate that acceptance to him and carried on making the payments you may be on a sticky wicket.

 

have you sought legal advice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes i have had a meeting with solicitor,have another meeting on 04/02/10.

 

on the acceptance point, i cant do anything yet as i am paying on a order of the court so i have no option,i cant accept termination but if i can get it set aside then it goes back to pre court stage then i can accept.

 

reason for set aside cca 140a unfair relationship (new evidence ) and the point of the dodgy dn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point i was making in this statement.

(lawfully or unlawfully one party cannot terminate only a court can do that

If they lawfully terminate and then claim the benefits of s88 then it is still up to the judge.

 

my case for example they went for possession but the judge suspended it.

they had a right under s88 but the judge didn't grant what they wanted,

so effectively the court ordered that the agreement went on.

carry on making monthly payments same terms and conditions.

 

I think possibly you may be getting a little muddled with this - they can still have terminated the agreement (obviously as they've gone to court with it), but the judge doesn't have to allow them to do what they want off the back of that termination. If their request for whatever - full repayment, possession etc - doesn't seem fair or reasonable, for instance you've made every effort to sort it out and they've obstructed you the whole way (and providing you have that elusive fair and reasonable judge!!) then I don't believe they are bound to allow the creditors carte blanche simply because they've followed the rules of default and termination.

 

ps - I think you're right about the aftershave DD, I can smell you from here. Old Spice isn't it??:D:D

 

edit - just realised DD has said this in the first part of his post:rolleyes: Must remember not to post before I've fully woken up:)

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think possibly you may be getting a little muddled with this - they can still have terminated the agreement (obviously as they've gone to court with it), but the judge doesn't have to allow them to do what they want off the back of that termination. If their request for whatever - full repayment, possession etc - doesn't seem fair or reasonable, for instance you've made every effort to sort it out and they've obstructed you the whole way (and providing you have that elusive fair and reasonable judge!!) then I don't believe they are bound to allow the creditors carte blanche simply because they've followed the rules of default and termination.

 

ps - I think you're right about the aftershave DD, I can smell you from here. Old Spice isn't it??:D:D

 

edit - just realised DD has said this in the first part of his post:rolleyes: Must remember not to post before I've fully woken up:)

 

my dad told me about that:)

 

blue blazer ( bugger- just as bad!!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes i have had a meeting with solicitor,have another meeting on 04/02/10.

 

on the acceptance point, i cant do anything yet as i am paying on a order of the court so i have no option,i cant accept termination but if i can get it set aside then it goes back to pre court stage then i can accept.

 

reason for set aside cca 140a unfair relationship (new evidence ) and the point of the dodgy dn.

 

because you are in such a precarious position with regard to charging orders and suspended orders on repossession i think that my advice would be innappropriate and i would suggest that you need legal representation on this one- but i'll watch with interest

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone - I've been having an epic battle since Mar 07.

 

Could someone pop over to here to help?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/81907-mbna-ding-ding-round-5.html#post1375454

 

I have a cc agreement from 1993 with no prescribed terms, they have admitted they have no prescribed terms and sent me t&cs from 1995 to show me 'what they would have looked like'.

 

I've sent numerous letters and 3 SARs requests over a period of time but there is no sign of

 

- a default notice

- a termination letter

 

How can I find out if a valid DN exists? Surely it should be in the SAR requests? If there is also no termination letter I don't want to poke them for them to reissue another one 2 years in!

 

Apologies Pinky for hijacking :-)

PLEASE sign this petition to reduce amount of time CRAs hold your data

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CreditRA

 

I HATE MBNA :evil::-x:mad::-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone - I've been having an epic battle since Mar 07.

 

Could someone pop over to here to help?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/81907-mbna-ding-ding-round-5.html#post1375454

 

I have a cc agreement from 1993 with no prescribed terms, they have admitted they have no prescribed terms and sent me t&cs from 1995 to show me 'what they would have looked like'.

 

I've sent numerous letters and 3 SARs requests over a period of time but there is no sign of

 

- a default notice

- a termination letter

 

How can I find out if a valid DN exists? Surely it should be in the SAR requests? If there is also no termination letter I don't want to poke them for them to reissue another one 2 years in!

 

Apologies Pinky for hijacking :-)

 

Proof :rolleyes: of existance of a DN will be in the SAR paperwork and will show as a record in the Comms Log.

 

As for a copy of the DN the creditors tend not to keep a hard copy of what was sent out, merely a record that it was sent - so unlikely you'll get one.

 

M

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone - I've been having an epic battle since Mar 07.

 

Could someone pop over to here to help?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/81907-mbna-ding-ding-round-5.html#post1375454

 

I have a cc agreement from 1993 with no prescribed terms, they have admitted they have no prescribed terms and sent me t&cs from 1995 to show me 'what they would have looked like'.

 

I've sent numerous letters and 3 SARs requests over a period of time but there is no sign of

 

- a default notice

- a termination letter

 

How can I find out if a valid DN exists? Surely it should be in the SAR requests? If there is also no termination letter I don't want to poke them for them to reissue another one 2 years in!

 

Apologies Pinky for hijacking :-)

 

the fact that they have admitted (hopefully in writing) that they cannot provide you with the terms and conditions that were applicable at the time of signing the agreement in 2003 is sufficient to prevent them from proceeding with court action -since they are clearly admitting that they have failed to comply with s78 and they are well aware that as a point of law they cannot enforce the DN argument will be a second line of defence

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a letter from a CCC advising they were going to default me and then sell my debt.

 

A month later they issued the DN, but apparently sold the debt three days before the default expiry, (I had a letter from the assignee confirming the sale).

 

The default was for the full balance (not the arrears).

 

Is this DN invalid?

 

If so what effect does it have on the debt (if any) bearing in mind they sold the debt on?

 

Do I have to acknowledge the DN and the account termination to avoid them re-issuing the DN?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They cannot default you for the full balance and selling it 3 days before an expiry date is termination. You can accept their termination then tell them that as it was terminated after issue of an unlawful DN, the account has been unlawfully rescinded. What you do after that is entirely up to you. They can claim arrears but my view is that it is not up to me to inform them of what they can or cannot claim thereafter. I am not going to do their job for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They cannot default you for the full balance and selling it 3 days before an expiry date is termination. You can accept their termination then tell them that as it was terminated after issue of an unlawful DN, the account has been unlawfully rescinded. What you do after that is entirely up to you. They can claim arrears but my view is that it is not up to me to inform them of what they can or cannot claim thereafter. I am not going to do their job for them.

 

How would this affect the assignment of what (at least to the OC) is now an uncollectable debt?

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4976 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...