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

NatWest threatening DCA when account is in dispute

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5544 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

I CCA'd them ages and haven't heard from them since February. I notified them I considered the account being in dispute. Today they threaten to pass the account to a DCA.


I've been browsing the template library unsuccessfully; does anyone have the template letter telling them to back off which they could post here, or put a link up?


Thanks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The account in dispute letter makes it clear that the account can not be passed to a third party, Natwest will be fully aware of this however it won't stop them passing it on to an external DCA. If they do then just send the 'bemused' Account in Dispute Letter which will dispatch with the DCA.


This is what I have done with Sharklycard & Halifax.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I was going to send NatWest a gentle reminder that they shouldn't sell the account. I fully expect them to do so anyway...


How are you getting on BTW, did your DCA's back off after the bemused letter or are they still hassling you? How long ago did you send it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair do's, I suppose it's not worth them wasting their time chasing a debt they bought for a few quid when there are (unfortunately) more pliable targets out there for them to pursue...


What about defaults, did BC and HFax default you? Capone did with me before passing it on to RW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not had any defaults placed by the DCA's in the cases where I've sent the bemused letter.


You're correct in that they drop the case like a hot potato once they realise that you are not going to be easy prey, why have the hassle with you when there are 12 easy targets for every one of us who will pay up under their threats.



Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not had any defaults placed by the DCA's in the cases where I've sent the bemused letter.


Sorry, should have made myself clear, did the OC's place defaults before passing to the DCA's? Just wondering, because there doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule with different people here having different experiences...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Halifax yes, but Sharklycard no.


However Halifax placed the default after defaulting on the CCA so in time I will look at having it removed as it was done incorrectly on a disputed account.




Naughty naughty...Report them to TS and the OFT for breaching OFT guidlines and the CPUTR 2008.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...