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

Egg ignored charges claim


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5288 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 is no time limit laid down by regulators for the refund of penalty charges which claimants allege to be unlawful for being exhorbitant and profit-making instead of lawfully just compensating for loss.

 

The drill is that the claimant asks by template letter for refund of Overlimit and Late Payment charges in full, based on an accurate itemised list of past charges. Egg to either pay or confront the claimant in Small Claims Court.

 

Quick refund depends on pressing the right levers. Egg managers know the CAG template letter by heart, and after giving in 111 times is not going to stop now. They do not want to face you in court, not when you know what to say. The thread page below shows how-to, the most recent few entries will do, plus the moc1982 template letter dated 30APR2007, a letter delivering as effectively today as on the day it was first sent to Egg 2.5 years ago.

 

Good luck. ;)

 

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

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: I telephoned Egg yesterday and today I've had a letter in the post, dated 5th. :eek:

 

I think it's their standard reply

 

 

..We would like to draw your attention to some of the points made by the OFT in the statement issued on 6th April 2006, at the conclusion of its investigation into default charges on credit cards. The OFT stated that default fees should not be equivalent to the threshold. The OFT stated that the presumption of unfairness in relation to the charges over £12.00 would apply where there are exceptional business factors. They therefore acknowledged that in those circumstances, a card issuer may be able to set a fair default charge above the £12 threshold.

 

The OFT, as an example, Specially referred to Egg’s practices of requiring all customers to pay the minimum monthly payment by direct debit.

 

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 £20.00 to £16.00. Accordingly, without any admission of liability as to the previous level of charges. Egg reduced its default charges to £16.00. The OFT has taken no further action against Egg.

 

Our investigation found that any charges applied t your account were at the rate of £16.00. For the reasons outlined above we are satisfied that our charges are fair and enforceable. As a result, we can not uphold your request to refund the charges in question and confirm that your complaint has now been closed.

 

If you have any concern relating to the information held about you by a Credit Reference Agency, you should contact the agency directly (:rolleyes: never stated any concern in my letter).

 

 

I know people have had their refunds in full even if it was the £16.00 Egg refers to. Does anyone know how I should respond?

Edited by _hennessey
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the computer-generated Egg letter to bamboozle the uninitiated, previously posted here verbatim many times by many CAGgers. Whatever anybody writes to Egg, they will try their luck and go through sending their set sequence of 2 or 3 template letters. They have nothing to lose by trotting out their busted argument, not known to be busted by newcomers. If you sent them a copy of the Magna Carta they would still respond with the same template letters, two or three times.

 

You can respond in kind, completely ignoring their letter, and to reiterate your readiness to confront their £1000-per-day barrister in court. Once they realise bamboozle does not work this time they will pay up in full. Their past form is to voluntarily add 8% per annum on top of the full refund to match Statutory (compensatory) Interest. If you want more interest than 8% it is up to you, but going on past form it looks inadvisable unless you are hot barrister class.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...