Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 160 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

Mint Card letter


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5227 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,

 

Bit of a panic, I have received a letter from Mint saying that I am in breach of my agreement as I'm in arrears, I can remedy the situation by paying the arrears of £389.00 within 17 days of the notice but I don't have that kind of money as I'm self employed and struggling to pay myself. I'm just about earning enough for shopping and mortgage.

 

Any ideas on what I can do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bearing

I would write to them first and explain your situation and then make them an offer of payment what every you can afford to pay each month even if its a token payment of £1.

Then i would send them a cca request to make sure they hold a valid agreement.

You can find templates for both of these letters in the template section.

Good luck. ( ;

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just in the process of writing them a letter with a token payment after speaking to CCCS yesterday, I'm not so panicked now as the advisor commented that they can't get out of you what you haven't got.

 

I shall also send off the request for the CCA.

 

Thanks for the good luck wishes

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

After sending the letter explaining my situation including my being in contact with the CCCS, I have today received a termination of Account letter.

 

Any ideas what I can do now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed in the DN that the parts BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN are not in bold font when compared to the font around it, I was under the impression that this needed to be prominent in Bold lettering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also they gave me 17 days after the date of the notice to credit my account to remedy the situation, at the top the Date of default notice is 25th June 2009.

 

Assuming thy sent the notice by first class post this gives the following.

 

25/06/2009 Thursday - Date of Default Notice (and probable posting day)

 

26/06/2009 Friday - 1st Working Day after Postage

27/06/2009 Saturday - WEEKEND

28/06/2009 Sunday - WEEKEND

29/06/2009 Monday - 2nd Working Day after Postage and date of Service as defined here

 

 

30/06/2009 Tuesday - 1st Clear Day

1/07/2009 Wednesday - 2nd Clear Day

2/07/2009 Thursday - 3rd Clear Day

3/07/2009 Friday - 4th Clear Day

4/07/2009 Saturday - 5th Clear Day

5/07/2009 Sunday - 6th Clear Day

6/07/2009 Monday - 7th Clear Day

7/07/2009 Tuesday - 8th Clear Day

8/07/2009 Wednesday - 9th Clear Day

9/07/2009 Thursday - 10th Clear Day

10/07/2009 Friday - 11th Clear Day

11/07/2009 Saturday - 12th Clear Day - Mint Deadline

12/07/2009 Sunday - 13th Clear Day

13/07/2009 Monday - 14th Clear Day - Statutory Deadline

14/07/2009 Tuesday - 15th Clear Day

15/07/2009 Wednesday - 16th Clear Day

16/07/2009 Thursday - 17th Clear Day - Mint Deadline by my reckoning (using 17 days)

Edited by bearing
Link to post
Share on other sites

25th June was a thursday so the DN is deemed served on monday 29t h- the second working day. 14 days after that is sunday 12th which is also 17 days after 25 June. So I think the DN is OK from that point of view

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi bearing

 

The 17 days situation is debatable anyway, although even if it is acceptable I believe your calculations are correct. Even if you count the 17th day it would be Sunday as Steven states but that is still 1 day short.

 

However, the notice states before the date shown which would be Sat 11th which adds further confusion.

 

To sum up I believe the DN is defective because it does not allow enough time and the termination is therefore 'unlawful' and there could be other issues. I am sure others will be along now you have put the link on the Dodgy DN thread but in the meantime you need to read through that thread.

 

Pedross

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am assuming this would be relevant even if they stated "17 days".. the regs say there MUST be a specific date. Was your DN posted 1st or 2nd class post.

 

 

Details of breach of agreement and action required to remedy, or pay compensation for, the breach

 

3

A specification of:--

 

(a) the provision of the agreement alleged to have been breached; and

 

(b) the nature of the alleged breach of the agreement, specifying clearly the matters complained of; and either

 

© if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the date, being a date [not less than fourteen days] after the date of service of the notice, before which that action is to be taken; or

 

(d) if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach and the date, being a date [not less than fourteen days] after the date of service of the notice, before which it is to be paid.

I think that is pretty conclusive that the Regs require a date not the words "fourteen days"

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

It came first class.

 

 

Then it is at least one day short according to my calculation you should have been given until Mon 13th.

 

However, steven's post is very relevent and I do not believe that 17 days is an acceptable statement and I have posted my reasons somewhere but don't ask me where.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it is at least one day short according to my calculation you should have been given until Mon 13th.

 

However, steven's post is very relevent and I do not believe that 17 days is an acceptable statement and I have posted my reasons somewhere but don't ask me where.

 

Thanks, I'll do a search.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is good case law that says that if the statutory period is not given (ie 14 clear days from the date of service) then the DN is invalid. However, I do not know of any case law which says that giving a number of days rather than a date also makes the DN invalid. Therefore you would be even more at the whim of the DJ if you relied on this fact in court IMHO

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is good case law that says that if the statutory period is not given (ie 14 clear days from the date of service) then the DN is invalid. However, I do not know of any case law which says that giving a number of days rather than a date also makes the DN invalid. Therefore you would be even more at the whim of the DJ if you relied on this fact in court IMHO

 

I was not sure if anyone had tested that theory yet but it appears not. Therefore the DN is 1 day short according to my calculations and should be a useful defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi steven

I am sure that the way the days are calculated are as bearing has done in post 8 with the exception of the mistake referring to 16 July.

 

That means the Statutory Deadline is Monday.

 

But the wording which must be used and has in fact been used is 'BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN' so that would make the mint deadline saturday in effect although it is not too important if I am correct in my Monday calculation.

 

Pedross

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'no later than' suggests that before does mean 'on' or 'before'.

 

Before means before. That is the word stated by the regulations.

 

This is one reason why I believe that the DN is defective. It should state a 'specified date' and it is almost impossible for 3 intelligent people to be sure what the date actually is. So let us assume that the 'date specified' is sunday 12th the deadline is saturday 11th by statute regardlesss of what mint say.

 

But steven has a valid point in that there is no case law to support this so it is a risky defence. But I do believe even so that it is 1 day short based on the table you have posted in post 8 which I believe is the correct calculation.

 

Pedross

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I Have a similar DN from rbs

Mine to says 17 days from the date on the notice.

With advice from another Cagger my argument will be that they have not specified a date.

There is a discussion going on at the moment about Dn which is very interesting

Check it out http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/196312-invalid-default-notices.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...