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

OH v Cap 1 & Rob Way *** WIN ***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4845 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 303
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 3 weeks later...

Well they have now sent a 'copy of your terms and conditions for this accout' .......

Oh no they haven't:rolleyes: They have sent 7 A4 pages with a hand written reference on the 1st page. Pages are not numbered and there is no reference to the agreement. I think it should be this letter, unless anyone can think of something better!

Thank you

 

 

Dear

Re: − Account/Reference Number

Thank you for your letter of XXXX, the contents of which have been noted.

You have failed to respond to my legal request under section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to supply me a true copy of the original Consumer Credit Agreement for the above account.

I note that you have replied to the above by sending a copy of an application form and some random Terms and conditions. I must inform you that this is not sufficient to comply with the request and that your company is still in default under the act.

 

To clarify, just sending the Terms and Conditions is a breach of the Act and Regulations as, apart from the information that the Regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a “true copy” of the agreement.

 

This breach of the agreement can be demonstrated as follows:

Section 180(1) (b) authorises, “the omission from a copy of certain material from the original, or the inclusion of certain material in condensed form.” This refers to statutory instruments made under the heading Copies of document regulations and in this care in particular to SI 1983/1557.

Before leaving section 180 there are two other sections that should be remembered these are:

 

Section 2(2) (a) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and conforms to the prescribed requirements;

And more importantly:

 

Section 2(b) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations.

You will see that this quite clearly states that whilst certain items may be left out of the copy document, the rest of the document must be in the form and contain all items as prescribed by the regulations.

 

Turning to the regulations regarding what may be omitted from these copies these are contained with SI 1983/1557.

 

The regulations state:

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy-

(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations there under as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy;

(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancellable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies);

 

It is quite clear what can be omitted from the copy document, this again asserts that all other details of the agreement should presented in form and content as required by the regulations.

 

The requirements of the Agreement regulations 1983/1553 are very explicit in describing the form and content of an agreement and this as I have demonstrated also applies to the copy of any such agreement with the above mentioned proviso.

 

Nowhere within these regulations does it state that part of the agreement can be presented on a separate document headed terms and conditions.

It does state that all terms and conditions should be within the agreement document and is explicit of the form in which it is presented.

 

I hope this explains why your reply was unacceptable I await a True copy of my agreement and would remind you again that whilst the request has not been complied with the default continues

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This is their latest reply (including errors), surely my last letter covers this?

'Our position remains unchanged, the information supplied fulfills our requirements ubder the Consumer Credit Act 1974; it has been well established that under the CCA a creditor ,ay produce a document representing the terms and conditions of any loan and not the original or a copy of the signed loan agreement.

Upon our assignment we became the data controller and as such are entitled to process your data in accordance with the principles of the Data protection act 1998.

We clearly see from the account that you do dot dispute your liability as you have made several payments already to it.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

They are now trying to speak to oh ........he never seems to be in :eek:

They are reviewing the payments and would like him to ring :D. I feel they have rather a long wait ahead of them. I'll keep phone harassment letter handy, just on case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe their latest tactic is confusion......

9/6/9 Thank you for paying.....up for review

10/6/9 You haven't been paying, pay now or else....

15/6/9 'In response to your recent correspondence please be advised we feel that by sending you the coy of your accounts agreement and statements we have fulfilled our statutary rights under the Consumer Credit Act and thereffore confirm that you are liable for this debt. Please contact our office to arrange payment on this account'

And

15/6/9 'In response to your recent correspondence please be advised that bank accounts do not have signed credit agreements and therefore we are unable to provide you with a copy. Please note we have arranged for copies of your account statements to be sent to you direct'

Well, it,s for a credit card, both letters same hybrid signature and both dated 15/6/09, delivered 2nd class on 15/6/9!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right decided to try a succinct letter. Not a bank account and a short application form is a no no. I'm hoping that if I leave out lots of legal jargon and big words they may understand what I am saying :lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Just ignore them. I CCA'd them March 08 for a Cap 1 account and got the same. If you write they write back, if you don't you get the odd alleged solicitors letter asking you to call Robbers Way but they have threatened me with court for 8 months now and I have sent 3 letters begging them to do it but they don't. If you want some fun, ring them and wait for the monkey to say 'do you realise this account is with our legal team who are considering legal actions?' and just say 'please take me to court'......then enjoy the silence as the monkey's script goes out the window!!!

 

All talk and definately no action.....they know they are stuffed

 

Well I hope you are right as today's letter states:

'we have fulfilled our obligations and are complety satisfied with the information we have supplied to you.

Please note we will not continue to communicate with you about this and further continuous to avoid payment will result in this account being passed to our legal department' :shock:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess what Horwich Farrelly have sent a threatogram and it's in a Rob Way envelope and from the same address :eek:

I guess it's a surprised letter http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/575-letter-to-solicitors-threatening-legal-action-in-default-of-agreement-request- to them.

Also I had sent the cpr 31.16 request to Rob Way on 29th June (which appears to be in postal never never land).

Is it worth a complaint to the SRA?

Link to post
Share on other sites

HW have replied to the cpr 31.16 that I had sent Rob Way;

'Please note as we advised a copy of the agreement has been forwarded to you and we are no longer required to provide further proof of your liability.'

This is the agreement http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp74/cymru_1/Cap1CCA.jpg.

Aren't the cpr different from the CCA requests? I think they are being 'economical with the truth /law'

Link to post
Share on other sites

'An application for disclosure before proceedings have started is permitted under section 33 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (c.54) or section 52 of the County Courts Act 1984 (c.28).'

 

Is this the correct statement to quote to HF in addition to telling them about the CCA and its requirements?

Link to post
Share on other sites

POC

'THe claimant claims outstanding monies due and payable by the defendant under a credit agreementwhereby the defendant agreed to repay with interest the value of the credit obtained.

And the claimant claims

1. The sum of XXXX

2. Interest pursuant to s69 of the County Court Act 1984 at the rate of 8% from xxxx03 to date hereof xxxx days is the sum of xxx.xx

3. Future interest accruing at the daily rate of .41

4. Costs'

Any comments gratefully received!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to my bump.....I have just found the default notice :D

'You must pay the amount that you are over on your credit limit within 10 days of the date on the top of this letter'

I also have a letter dated 3 weeks later saying that 'Cap 1 has terminated your right to credit under the agreement'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes!!!!!

Rob Way are in default of my CPR 31.16 request. :eek: Should I now send a CPR 31.14 to the solicitors? I assume I acknowledge service online and then if I haven't had any reply :rolleyes: file an embarrassed defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...