Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Welcome Finance - Is This Enforceable??


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4794 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 717
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Mrs Heath was given the offer of a singular loan from the Southern Pacific. This could only be taken as a whole as a secured loan. It was a condition that some of the new loan would be used to repay an existing secured loan. This could mean that part of the new loan was restricted-use credit. The Judge couldn't find anything within the agreement which could pemit a conclusion that part of the loan was classed as restricted-use and part of it unrestricted-use. It is a single agreement, it cannot be seperated agreements.

 

This would be true if I had a cheque for the full amount of funds.......

 

I didnt.....

 

Welcome paid off some of my debts with cheques from welcome to the respective credit companies.

 

The remainder I have paid to me......

 

Also forgot to mention......

 

Acceptance fees - cannot be shown in the total amount of credit (we know that)

To introduce a mortgage indemnity fee separate from the acceptance............

 

restricted and non restricted agreement - multiple agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

true, but for two things:

 

1) no cheques were issued on her behalf to pay off other credit from the supplier of the loan - if this were the case, she would have had no say in the matter as to how the funds were to be paid, because they were going to be paid off by the loan supplier cheques regardless. she could not use other funds to pay off these debts, because monies were to be paid out of the allocated cheques for existing debts out of here loan. (restricted use).

 

2) the mortgage indemnity fee - welcome chose to separate this out of the fees. clearly the agreement has an acceptance fee, so why - if this wasnt another loan agreement (mif) didnt they just state that the acceptance fee was 235 + 2750 giving total fees of 2985????

 

reason being is that they charge interest on the mif, and dont tell you.

 

must be a multiple loan agreement (restricted and unrestricted)

Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF are you talking about?

 

Judge wants to see you now? Yeah, OK. In your dreams.

 

No point asking for help AFTER you've taken this road. The time to find out what the feck you should be doing is BEFORE you do anything stupid.

 

I'm dying to see how many people help you out on this. I suspect the answer will be NONE. But I'll keep subbing cos I'm a nosy git.

Link to post
Share on other sites

cant wait to see him again either - a very nice chap.

 

If these t*ssers gave me the information from the start then we could get on with the case, we win, set a precedent, and the floodgates open........

 

end of the ****......

 

simple as that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

You go Emanevs, still fighting here, too. They have done a big u turn on me and finally admitted the figures i presented to them re PPI were right and they were wrong.

As always please check and double check what myself and other Caggers inform.

 

If you like my Post please dont be shy give my Scales a little tickle :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...