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

dodgy letter from egg ??


symi
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5452 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

hi all

l cca, d egg on 2/4/09 no response so dispute letter sent on 28/4/09 got a " recieved your complaint letter" on 3/5/09 :confused:

then got a "your credit agreement req " letter on 15/4/09 saying to proceed with my req l need to re-submit my req with a valid signature:grin:

 

or id as follows : bank or b/soc or cc statement not to do with egg OR store card or catalogue statement , or utility bill

 

this must b orig not copy dated in last 3mths show full name or initial +surname + current address

they were not that picky to prove who l was when l made payments :rolleyes:

 

shall l ignore or comply YOU DECIDE !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere in the CCA does it state you are obliged to provide a signature or further ID

 

State to them that to this date they have happily sent correspondence relating to the account to your address, so you assume they accept your identity and therefore require that they comply within the statutory timeframe of 12 working days

  • Haha 1

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

l love you :D

 

thanks hun xx

 

just a thought , the 12+2 has passed already + they,ve hasd a dispute letter as well , so do l still write + give em 12 more days [cos im a nice person ]

or tell em to go scratch ?

Edited by symi
Link to post
Share on other sites

egg love to stall. I've been going back and fore with my request arguing I don't need to sign and they know my address and happily send any other correspondence to my address and they keep insisting and sending my postal order back. I got a letter from them the other day regarding my request and saying they hadn't received my fee!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

egg love to stall. I've been going back and fore with my request arguing I don't need to sign and they know my address and happily send any other correspondence to my address and they keep insisting and sending my postal order back. I got a letter from them the other day regarding my request and saying they hadn't received my fee!!

 

 

me thinks its playtime, ... yippeee

 

xx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got that one today - yet their 12+2 ran out 28th April!

Pointed that out to them when they rang the other day and they told me the Information Commisioner knows we have a backlog.

Think they think that it absolves them of their legal obligations and that you'll go away - FAT CHANCE

 

Sent them this in reply:

 

Jamie, thank you for your reply however there seems to be some confusion in this matter.

I pointed this out to your colleague and certainly was not satisfied with the response.

My request was made to Egg on the 7th April 2009, and received by Egg on the 9th April 2009.

I have proof of signature for this.

From this date the law clearly states that you are allowed 12 working days to process this request satisfactorily.

This time limit expired on the 28th April 2009.

To this date your are 23 days over the prescribed time limit allowed to you under the law and as such there are legal ramifications pertaining to this.

As my request was not complied with by the 28th April 2009, the account is and continues to be in a state of dispute.

I am sure that you are aware of what this situation entails and as such your secure message today and the numerous telephone calls are in direct breach of the dispute position that Egg have voluntarily placed themselves in by not complying with my request in the prescribed timescale.

The letter I received today, dated 18th April 2009 and posted 19th April 2009 requests an "identification document".

As you have seen fit to accept my address for ALL corresponence relating to my account then you have also then accepted my identity in replying to my request to this address.

You have also discussed my request during several recent telephone calls and stated that it is logged on your system and being dealt with therefore you cannot deny that this request is valid.

As such there can be no reason to delay your legal obligation in complying with my request and until such time this account is and will remain in dispute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I to got is letter yesterday - the template letter will be used again - good luck - I will keep watching as it appears you are a month ahead of me.

 

Despite my Default letter they still managed to take £265 out of my bank account - I never cancelled the DD in time!!! - have definately cancelled now!

Edited by LB145

Halifax Card (OH) -2.9% reinstated - Sucess!

Santander/House of Fraser (1) PPI Refund plus 8% plus LOC

Santander/House of Fraser (2) PPI Refunded plus 8% plus LOC

Penalty Charge Notice - Representation accepted and PN cancelled - £120

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...