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

ccj to with welcome.now dispute


stepwayne
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3926 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 560
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

hi all, a thought just came to me. has anyone had an agreement deemed unenforcable with welcome yet in court. Or have welcome stopped before that stage, and not pursued the account. It just seems that everything i read is ongoing. am i correct in thinking post has had these over a barrel with an account he had with welcome?

Link to post
Share on other sites

theres two on there, all muddled up i'm afraid. not sure which post spotted. all it is is original agreement and a rewritten one. we have never signed any more. which come to think about it why do i have 4 account numbers on sar?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Wayne I will give my calculations to your loan, please get them double checked before using in court as I really am not that good with the figures and could be wrong.

 

 

Loan is for £4431.31 over 36 months at 44.40 % apr

 

monthly repayment of £206.29

interest £2,995.14

total payable £7,426.45

 

now we add insurance

 

insurance £1238.62 over 36 months at 44.40% apr

 

interest £837.18

monthly payment £57.66

total payable £2,075.80

 

add the loan interest and insurance interest to give £3832.32 then add acceptance fee of £75 to give a total £3907.32

 

£3907.32 + 4431.31 for loan + 1238.62 for insurance is total

9577.25 divide by 36 to give a monthly figure of £266.03.

 

welcomes total amount payable is £7430.76, this is way out so at end of loan you would of had shortfall of 2146.49.

 

Were did you get 32.2 from ?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Loan is for £3394.50 over 36 months at 32.20 % apr

 

monthly repayment of £140.85

interest £1,676.18

total payable £5,070.68

 

now we add insurance

 

insurance £924.35 over 36 months at 32.20% apr

 

interest £456.43

monthly payment £38.35

total payable £1,380.78

 

add the loan interest and insurance interest to give £2132.61 then add acceptance fee of £75 to give a total £2207.61

 

£2207.61 + 3394.50 for loan + 924.35 for insurance is total

6526.46 divide by 36 to give a monthly figure of 181.29.

 

welcomes total amount payable is £6457.68 so at end of loan you would of had shortfall of 68.78.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No probs Wayne, I understand. as I said im no expert and my figures need checking as im learning also lol. if you do find anything wrong with my calcs please let me know so I learn from it but to my knowledge at the moment I believe im right.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks ozzy.got 3 weeks and a few days to get prepared. hopefully i will be. but i am concerned about my ability. what i want or have to say seems to come out in dribs and drabs. judge wasn't overly impressed last time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...