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

Reply from Egg...


ccjjl82
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5346 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

My other half has sent a claim for charges, but just asked for the difference instead of whole charge.

They have replied and said basically the OFT said they can set the limit at £16:

'Following the conclusion of the investigation, the OFT indicated that it would not proceed further against Egg on the basis that Egg reduced its charges from £20 to £16. Accordingly without any admission of liability as to the previous level of charges, Egg reduced its charges to £16. The OFT has taken no further action against Egg.'

They are now offering £4!!

I was under the impression that all banks etc had to reduce their charges to no higher than the threshold of £12. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

on 5th April 2006 the CEO of the OFT set a limit of £12 for credit card penalty charges. If the cards did not comply he "did not rule out taking legal action against them." He gave the cards an action deadline of 31st May 2006. However Egg being a cyber bank managed to persuade the OFT they were a special case in that fewer of their cardholders incurred Overlimit and Late Payment charges because they had a scheme of compulsory DDs for all their cardholders. The OFT gave Egg a special dispensation of £16 instead of £12.

 

The OFT at no stage said £12 or £16 charge was fair or lawful. For praqmatic reasons the OFT will not take action to lower the bar at this time, but in no way has the OFT ever ruled £12 or £16 as lawful. The Egg story is pure fantasy and misrepresentation. Repeatedly the OFT said the legality of charge level is to be determined by the law court.

 

Ignore Egg's template letter and reclaim the entire charge -- 105 cardholders did. In particular reply along the lines of CAG template letter by moc1982 dated 30 APR 2007. There will be a ritulised exchange of 2 or 3 letters. After which Egg are under instructions to refund -- or face impossible questions before a judge in court. Good luck.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/53376-e-day-victory-over-5.html

  • Haha 1

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

ok, recieved a reply from them today says:

 

final review and decision.

we have completed a final review blah blah....

we included an offer to refund £4 in full and final settlement of your complaint. Please be aware that this is our final settlement offer....

 

Basically saying £4 is all we are offering.

 

Does anybody have any advice on what to reply? I did know that there would be 2/3 letters going between us after the letter sent above, but I am a bit stuck on what to reply to this one.

 

Thanks for your help

c

Link to post
Share on other sites

Egg have 2 million cards, and everythiing goes through automated routine from which junior staff dare not deviate.

 

If you ignore their automated computer-generated template reply, and re-send your letter, adding that you will see them in court and additionally claim legal charges. Nothing new here, just repetiation of known patterns to discourage the uninitiated.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ok, recieved a reply from them, its exactly the same letter recieved for the past 2 times.

Would I be right in just sending them the same letter I did last time? Or do I need to add something?

Thanks

C

Link to post
Share on other sites

Egg are known to have a drill of sending out 2 or 3 letters blindfold, it is not particularly aimed at you. They probably do not even realise they are repeating themselves. On past form they will not repeat indefinitely.

 

If you reiterate you position in a crisp sharp actionpoint, i.e.

 

unless you receive a refund you will file the N1 within one week. They can pay you now, or pay you later and pay their barrister 20 times as much to lose to you in court. You may not have stomach for court, but they don't know that. They fancy a court appearance even less than you.

 

Good luck.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...