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
      • 162 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

First Direct **********!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5545 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

Just been looking at my credit file and thought it was good my debt had gone down but no, just more accounts in default!

 

Now First Direct can you believe this one?

 

I had a credit card which I have CCA'd and still waiting on satisfactory response. I also had current account, which has an overdraft outstanding as its not my priority to pay.

The O/D balance is a combination of allowed o/d , excess caused by them paying standing orders & direct debits despite no funds, this was as I was closing down activity on the account adn I didnt expect these to be paid as they never normally are, the rest predictably is charges on this balance.

 

FD have closed down my CC record as settled, and put a new account called "consolidated debt" (!!) with the combined total, so I am guessing thsi is the record that was the bank acount.

 

I had a letter recently saying I owed them a total of £xxx - they have combined the two together on the letter, and saying because I hadn't responded to demands for payment they were going to take action.

 

I have written back disputing this as 1) the credit card is in dispute due to failed CCA (which they deny), and 2) they haven't chased me at all re O/D before that letter, aside from the fact they contributed to the situation.

 

So I would like some help please

 

Can they do this?

 

what can I do?

 

I have sent off SAR a few days ago before knowing this was on my file.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now they have returned my SAR because they can't authenticate my signature!!!!!!

 

What are these people like?

 

I "signed" my letter with my abbreviated signature (ie initials) for obvious reasons

 

Now they want me to fill in their form for a SAR

 

and in the meantime we now have Metropolitan chasing the whole debt even though no-one said they can consolidate and it's in dispute etc etc....

 

:mad:

 

More letters to write this weekend methinks!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Subbing

 

FD doing strange things at the moment, and fear my two balances have also been 'combined' I too have an unenforceable CCA and and overdraft against which I have a claim for charges which are double the size of the outstanding overdraft.

 

Will watch this space with interest!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Sir,

 

You have stipulated that you require proof of my identity/signature before you comply with my SAR,

 

may I bring the following to your attention;

Data Protection Act Good Practice Notes:

 

2. Do you have enough information to be sure of the requester’s identity?

Often you will have no reason to doubt a person’s identity. For example, if a person with whom you have regular contact sends a letter from their known address it may be safe to assume that they are who they say they are.

 

Suffice to say that if the Information Commissioners Office are satisfied that if you have previously corresponded with me at this address then it is reasonable that I am the person I say I am, therefore there is no leglislation nor guidelines that you can hide behind in an attempt to avoid fullfilling my legal request,

 

Yours,

Print name do not sign.

Page not found

http://http:/www.consumeractiongroup.co.ukforumattachment.phpattachmentid=8861&d=1242456802

  • 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...