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

An AMEX Action Group?


smouk
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4859 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

There seems to be growing body of evidence that a proportion of Amex conduct and procedures, whilst being distasteful, might also be unlawful and possibly even illegal. I personally have had more than enough of their BS and arrogance and feel that it is time to go up a gear.

 

Setting aside the issues common to all the lenders and focussing upon Amex's distinct conduct and business model, it strikes me that a lobbying exercise, targetting politicians, media and regulators might make some headway.

 

Any other 'victims' agree? If so, can you link your thread into this thread below so we can gauge the, er, 'weight'.

 

My thread is here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Aplogies for the delay in replying. Currently gathering evidence re: my own predicament and will return to this subject very soon. Have contacted a couple of journos who may be interested once I've done a little more leg work!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we already had an Amex action group on CAG..............:rolleyes:

 

They seem to lose a lot.........and their methods very simple to out-wit, especially if they use those Muppets' in Maidstone.

Whilst I do not for one minute play down the importance and benefits of CAG, it does not (at least as far as I am aware) lobby our political masters nor the 'fourth estate'. So much of Amex conduct seems to be underhand and dishonest that I would like to see their profile raised on our terms rather than theirs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are getting very cross on this thread about our 'political masters' not doing anything and want to lobby. Not just Amex, obviously, the whole bloody system.

 

Yet Another Suicide through Debt

 

The people who take their own lives aren't the feckless, they are the ones who are in this mess due to changes in circumstances and then the appalling behaviour of companies including Amex.

 

The issues are on that thread, but are basically charges, charges, charges....... on those who can't afford them so get more and more in debt.

 

We would like to lobby so any ideas would be good.

 

DD

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A well publicised victory on securitisation (see the thread Well Amex declines to answer Securitisation Question) in the UK could give more than a bloody nose! If it were proven they did not have the right to ask for payment after selling off their rights through securitisation in the US (assuming they ever had the right in the UK/Europe!) and they knowingly have continued to seek payment it's fraud isn't it (I realise this will be no surprise to many!)?

 

I have recently had my eyes open to the deceit and underhand tactics referred to in this thread. The oh so clever wordings of the sols letters. Quite incredible. I am not surprised people who are uninformed decide to kill themselves with the pressures that are placed on them through companies like this. It's so sad and a total outrage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A well publicised victory on securitisation (see the thread Well Amex declines to answer Securitisation Question) in the UK could give more than a bloody nose! If it were proven they did not have the right to ask for payment after selling off their rights through securitisation in the US (assuming they ever had the right in the UK/Europe!) and they knowingly have continued to seek payment it's fraud isn't it (I realise this will be no surprise to many!)?

 

I have recently had my eyes open to the deceit and underhand tactics referred to in this thread. The oh so clever wordings of the sols letters. Quite incredible. I am not surprised people who are uninformed decide to kill themselves with the pressures that are placed on them through companies like this. It's so sad and a total outrage.

 

I could not agree more, excellent point!

 

They can be beaten though......... and their tactics easily exposed, sadly they try all their tricks then withdraw in a lot of cases when they know they will lose of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your comments make me wonder if it is possible via the legal process to prevent Amex withdrawing from a claim they have made e.g. in the case of a counter claim would a withdrawal require the permission of the counter claimer for the claim to be dropped? I am sure there would be defendants or claimants posting on this forum who would be willing to use their case as a vehicle to try and flush out the truth on securitisation if properly supported. The publicity following a victory, if well targeted, could be extremely damaging and more to the point help many people.

 

If they (Amex) and Brachers on their behalf continued asking for payments they KNOW they (Amex) have securitised in the US and given away their rights to collect but they keep asking for payment it’s fraud isn’t it?

 

My layman’s understanding of the Fraud Act 2006 (which may not be up to date!) is that if someone seeks to enrich themselves or another by making representation they know or think may not be true, it is in breach of the act. Hopefully I haven't distracted people from the wider thrust of this thread.

Edited by Hungryforinfo
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
  • 11 months later...
  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...