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

IF no cca or probably not enforceable why .......


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5546 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

why is it not advisable to stop payment?

 

Is it not advisable to encourage OC or DCA to take you to court?

 

Why is the request for cca then not a good reasons to call account in dispute (they supply anything so not a dispute I get that) - why is it not a good idea though to stop payments and get oc and dca's to make next move?

 

Is the cessation of payments looked at negatively with judges?

 

not trying to avoid a debt as such but had read couple of places on cag it wasn't advisable to stop payments.... make a very small f+f settlement (which will probably be refused) but why??

Link to post
Share on other sites

why is it not advisable to stop payment?

 

Is it not advisable to encourage OC or DCA to take you to court?

 

Why is the request for cca then not a good reasons to call account in dispute (they supply anything so not a dispute I get that) - why is it not a good idea though to stop payments and get oc and dca's to make next move?

 

Is the cessation of payments looked at negatively with judges?

 

not trying to avoid a debt as such but had read couple of places on cag it wasn't advisable to stop payments.... make a very small f+f settlement (which will probably be refused) but why??

 

Generally because it can knacker up your credit file... if it is already screwed and you believe you have a genuine dispute then don't pay.

 

But don't take my word for it... others might have a different opinion :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

what I want to know though is why there is an argument for NOT paying if they have not provided a cca with prescribed terms? is the only reason the fact they may still have one in court... (SAR not showed up one with prescribed terms either)

 

so why would one argument be 'keep paying something'??

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok how about plan A

 

pay / write a lot to oc / complaint to fos about calls or ott action / pay less / get dodgy cca / stop paying because they've annoyed you and you have no money for all creditors with dodgy ccas / hope for best?

 

anyhow back to question..

 

must be a reason to continue pay even if the cca is dodgy??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, sorry for jumping on your thread but the icon to create my own is not there, not sure why. Anyway, the theme is the same. I have requested and finally received some information about a debt with HFC bank. They have provided basic details such as date account opened, original balance, etc, plus a short statement, a standard loan agreement and Ts & Cs. However, they say they say:

 

"HFC Bank has been unable to provide a photocopy of your original agreement. However, please note that in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Consumer Credit Regulations 1983 we provide a copy of the executed agreement that does not include information which it is permitted to exclude such as the signatures and signature box. Upon the original agreement becoming available, HFC Bank will forward this to youas soon as received."

 

What does this mean? Is the debt enforceable? I currently pay them through the CCCS via Weightmans, but they are always hassling me for more money and have threatened with various litigations. Does the fact they can't produce a signed agreement change anything? Does it at least put me in a better position to ask for a full and final settlement with a decent discount?

 

Thanks for any guidance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Debt Destroyer.

It would be better if you started your own thread on this, (on the forum intro screen "New Thread" button.)

 

but to answer your question,

you should send a copy of this letter:

 

"Dear Morons,

As you should be aware that under Consumer Credit Act 1974, and English Case law, a "credit agreement" without certain items of information contained

"within the four corners of the agreement" [1] is not enforceable at law.

I DO NOT remember signing any such document regarding this alleged debt.

If you cannot, or will not, supply me with such proof, as is my right under the Consumer Credit Act and as already requested, then I

WILL NO LONGER BE MAKING PAYMENTS TOWARD THIS ALLEGED DEBT until such time as I have proof.

 

[1]

*1

Wilson & Anor v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 (04 April 2007)

 

33. In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under section 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127 (3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them.

 

Basically, if there's no signed agreement, then there's no proof you ever signed an agreement (and the "loan" should be treated as a gift").

Carpe Jugulum

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...