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

CITI response to CCA?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5400 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 there,

 

I CCA'd CITI a few weeks ago and have had this odd response in the post today - can anyone make sense of it?

 

" Thank you for your letter in which you have asked us to provide copies of your agreement with CITIFnacila under Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. We have to inform you that we are under no obligation to comply with a request for a copy of your agreement under the Consumer Credit Act as we no longer have a contractual relationship with you, nor are we seeking to enforce any agreement against you. Your right to be provided with this information from CitiFinancial ended with the closure of your account. I am returning the £1 you have sent in realtion to this request. This will follow under seperate cover. Should you have any questions please feel free to call me on XXXX. Signed the Data Request Team.

 

Now up until a couple of weeks ago they were calling me about 5 times a day etc but have stopped recently. Odd thing is that this card is not that old and i felt sure they would have had a CCA for me. Oddly too this letter came in an envelope with EGG's address on the back? What does this mean - have they sold it? Any thoughts? Many thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, avarose.

 

I'll move your thread to the Citi Forum.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that - seems like it is their chosen letter of the week then! Well i think i am going to sit tight and see what they do next... I will keep an eye on the other thread too to see what happens there...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Statements of that nature are binding under the Consumer Credit Act (s172 I think), as such they have been pretty stupid to issue that letter.

 

That said, they'll likely do as they do in all these cases and continue to enforce the agreement - despite the fact that after 12+2 working days they are not allowed to, the OFT specifically states that a creditor is not allowed to enforce the agreement at all during this period - which would cover attempted collections via phone and writing, making entries against your credit file, selling the account and so forth.

 

That said we are talking Citi who from past experience don't seem to give a damn about the law and regulations.

 

Therefore i'd suggest making a complaint to the Office Of Fair Trading enclosing a copy of that letter, it seems to be their standard response, and also consider getting in touch with your local trading standards as you are legally entitled to a copy of this document (albeit a couple of things can be removed, signature, signature date etc)

Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

 

Many thanks for your responses etc. I have had a letter this morning from CITI chasing for money again. What should i do - send them a CCA / In Dispute letter? Also, i have been paying them a £1 a month - shall i stop this or continue paying to show good faith - not sure.... Thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The choice is yours.

 

You can stop paying after 12+2 days as is your right whilst your s78(1) CCA request is outstanding.... that said Citi will follow standard procedure and operate the account as normal despite being prohibited under s78(6). Inevitably this would lead to requests for payment, phonecalls and the defaulting of your credit file - all actions they are not allowed to do.

 

That said if you are only paying £1 a month which is not an arrangement with Citi then they will likely do the above anyway.

 

I would first of all suggest submitting a complaint to the Office Of Fair Trading, as you are legally entitled to a copy of the executed agreement and also complain to your trading local standards department.

Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...