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

Alliance & Leicester avoiding responsibility


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5321 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

It never rains it pours eh? Fresh from launching battles with Link Financial on a debt they shouldn't be handling -

 

(http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/221243-link-financial-check-out.html)

 

and then Alliance & Leicester kick off as well! CCA'd them about three months ago and along comes an agreement, all looks pretty good. I then notice there is no right to cancel box or information on my rights. It wasn't signed on their premises and no details were sent through afterwards explaining my rights (which actually woiuld have been useful as I was then offered a slightly better deal). I wasn't even sent an executed copy of the agreement after Alliance & Leicester completed the process but I can't remember if it was pre-signed by them or not, either way not as big an issue as the cancellation rights.

 

Sent them a letter asking for why they failed to do this and also asked for a breakdown of the loan as I wanted to check the tolerances were correct. Had a few letters back, all promising to look into it and asking for patience whilst this is completed. In the meantime they send the occasional letter stating they've charged me £25 for not paying anything to them, the usual 'ignore the facts and bill the consumer' approach we're all familiar with. Fine, the account is in dispute whilst they do their thing. Out of the blue this morning comes a letter from Global Debt Management Services Ltd wanting the entire balance paid. Naughty naughty. So, instead of just dealing with the issue A&L decide to get heavy on a problem they've created.

 

Have just finished a letter reminding them of their breach of CCA 1974, OFT Debt Collection Guides, Data Protection Act and CPUTR. Looks as if I'm going to have to play hardball now which I didn't want. I was perfectly willing to negotiate with them and they choose the hard way!

 

Ok, am I correct in thinking the agreement has never actually been executed correctly due to this? If so I believe I'm entitled to the interest back on the loan as they had no right to apply it plus statutory interest? Agreement is quite a few years old so before April 2007 changes. Either way they're clearly spooked to have done this. Appreciate any feedback as ever ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...