Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • if the agreement was taken out jan 23, then she has not reached the 1/3rd mark so the car has not become protected goods under the consumer credit act.  this puts her in a very very vulnerable position regarding ever keeping the car....whereby once they have issued a default notice they can legally send a guy with a flatbed (though they are NOT BAILIFFS and have ZERO legal powers) to collect the car.  if the car is kept on the public highway then they can simply take it away and she will legally owe the whole stated amount on the agreement AND lose the car. if it's on private property i'e like a driveway, ok they shouldn't take it without her agreeing, but if they do, it's not really on but its better than a court case and an inevitable loss with the granting a return of goods order. are these 'health reasons' likely to resolve themselves in the very short term (like a couple of months?) and can she immediately begin working again ? i'e has she got a job or would have to find one?  answer the above and we'll try and help. but she looks to be between rock and a hard place . whatever happens she will still have to pay the loan off...car or no car....unless you can appeal to the finance company's better nature using health reasons to back off for xxx months.
    • no need to use it. it doubles the size of the thread and makes it very diff to find replies on small screens too. just like @username it - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread already inc you ...gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.
    • Hello all,   I ordered a laptop online about 16 months ago. The laptop was faulty and I was supposed to send it back within guarantee but didn't for various reasons. I contacted the company a few months later and they said they will still fix it for me free of charge but I'd have to pay to send it to them and they will pay to send it back to me. The parcel arrived there fine. Company had fixed it and they sent it via dpd. I was working in the office so I asked my neighbours who would be in, as there's been a history of parcel thefts on our street. I had 2 neighbours who offered but when I went to update delivery instructions, their door number wasn't on the drop down despite sharing the same post code.  I then selected a neighbour who I thought would likely be in and also selected other in the safe place selection and put the number of the neighbour who I knew would definitely be in and they left my parcel outside and the parcel was stolen. DPD didn't want to deal with me and said I need to speak to the retailer. The retailer said DPD have special instructions from them not to leave a parcel outside unless specified by a customer. The retailer then said they could see my instructions said leave in a safe space but I have no porch. My front door just opens onto the road and the driver made no attempt to conceal it.  Anyway, I would like to know if I have rights here because the delivery wasn't for an item that I just bought. It was initially delivered but stopped working within the warranty period and they agreed to fix it for free.  Appreciate your help 🙏🏼   Thanks!
    • As the electric carmaker sees sales fall and cuts jobs, we take a closer look at its problems.View the full article
  • 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

what should I do now - if anything


flooz
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4862 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

Thank you Gez, DD and everyone else that's helping me, I shall be posting the letter tomorrow, I can now see how 'generous' I am, giving them extra time, although I do have to remember that the letter wasn't 'signed for', but as cheque was cleared through my bank on 2nd February, and counting 40 days from there, I'm loath to give them any more time, but if I must..... ;-)

 

You're stars!

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 560
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Hi Flooz

 

Remembered now you mentioned not rec del in a previous post, sorry to stall you slightly but you'd be best served allowing a little more time....... if you proceed with litigation you need to be seen as the injured party and by allowing more than the prescribed time frame you have acted in accordance with pre action protocols. I'd maybe send the letter now but extend the deadline to the 28th March (54 days total from clearing).

 

You can leave the number of days as outlined in the letter as they cannot dispute that you have condeded to + 40 days if you file on/after 28th of this month.

 

If/when you come to filing you can still use the effective date as 10th January, it won't then matter if it can be evidenced as they will have no defence with regard to prescribed period of compliancy.

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Gez, I had just printed the letter, but I gave them a further 7 days, till 15th March. just working it out, that's 42 days since cheque was cashed, but 63 days since the letter was sent. Perhaps, to be on the safe side, I should give till the 21st as you suggested.

 

With a bit of luck, their 'internal post' will delay my letter getting to the correct dept.

 

Incidentally, I know there's been many of Cap1's names been posted on here: I've got Sven Lagerberg. Anyone else had him? (not literally ;))

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Incidentally, I know there's been many of Cap1's names been posted on here: I've got Sven Lagerberg. Anyone else had him? (not literally ;))

 

I was gonna say his mother did but thats a terrible double entendre, you can tell its getting late........:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Gez, I had just printed the letter, but I gave them a further 7 days, till 15th March. just working it out, that's 42 days since cheque was cashed, but 63 days since the letter was sent. Perhaps, to be on the safe side, I should give till the 21st as you suggested.

 

With a bit of luck, their 'internal post' will delay my letter getting to the correct dept.

 

Incidentally, I know there's been many of Cap1's names been posted on here: I've got Sven Lagerberg. Anyone else had him? (not literally ;))

 

Yes good old Sven on mine oddly all foreign names on all of my data controllers

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Reply received today. Not the information required, I haven't scanned in the whole letter, as it's quite clearly 'we still require your signature'.

 

Any advice on what to do now? Do I ignore the letter and just wait for the extended deadline before writing (they have only 5 more days), or do I respond further?

 

It looks like Cap1 are definitely NOT going to play ball. I didn't want to go down the 'legal' route, mainly because this is my husband's card, and whilst I'm quite happy to sit in front of a court and fight something, I know my husband isn't comfortable doing that - but then I guess he can allow me to be his 'representative'.

 

Any advice please?

 

Many thanks :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes , photocopy two household bills within the last three months- say rates water rates gas leccy etc and send that to them

 

remind them that they require proof of identity and that a signature is not sufficient proof but the bills are

 

that way if you make a complaint they will not have the proverbial leg to stand on

 

be honest- if you are not giving them your signature because you think they may use it for other purposes then tell them that

 

otherwise just sign it and then cross it with two bars like a cheque and put a footnote under it that you have "tamper proofed" the signature

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks DD. They have actually had proof of ID (IMO) - the cheque sent to them was drawn on Husband's personal bank account (he's also the main account holder with Cap1, I'm a secondary), it was clearly signed with the same signature as used for Cap1, and the cheque has been cashed. Is that not proof enough?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They try to grind us down never had our Capital One Subject Access Request tried saying the signature they had wasn`t the one on file all a stalling game but no idea what you do next other than Court

 

Information Commissioner. If everybody reports them the Comm. will have to act.

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your continuing support. I'm more than happy to report them to the ICO, the more they are difficult, the more I'm likely to dig my heels in with them.

 

Is there a correct format to follow when writing? I did look to see if there was anything in the library, but to no avail.

 

But just in case I'm being difficult - is there anyone who doesn't agree with me that the signature/cheque/honoured scenario is without any doubt proof enough?

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks DD. They have actually had proof of ID (IMO) - the cheque sent to them was drawn on Husband's personal bank account (he's also the main account holder with Cap1, I'm a secondary), it was clearly signed with the same signature as used for Cap1, and the cheque has been cashed. Is that not proof enough?

 

it's proof of name - not address

 

personally i think this signature stuff is a lot of hot air- but it is up to you

 

those caggers who make a crusade about them being officious- may well be the same caggers who throw their hands in the air in disbeleif when they receive someone elses data through the post

 

cant have it both ways!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

We sent hubbie`s signature they then said this wasn`t the one on file they also wanted signature for CCA told them to stop acting the fool and wasting time they sent the cca but haven`t sent the Sars the latest they wanted was "Driving Licence" that`s a good one hubbie brain damaged how on earth would he have a driving licence or anything else in his name all bills are in my name as he can`t talk to discuss things and they know his situation they really are the limit

Link to post
Share on other sites

dear sirs

 

You have been provided with a signature on a cheque which has cleared your bank.

 

i do not have a driving licence or a passport

 

i have provided proof of address and you have already sent me documents in response to a s78 CCA request

 

you are now being obstructive and although you are probably having a "chuckle" at my expense at the moment- i suggest that your chuckle might turn into a "chorkle" if following a complaint you are hit with a £5000 fine!

 

Kindly stop obfuscating and being difficult and supply what has been requested

 

Y F

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crap1 are laughable in their response, almost appears they do not have the staff available to cater for SAR.

 

They seem happy to tell you how much you owe (Flooz previous post 221 3rd March) and bring the agreement to your attention again......but can't bring themselves to provide the data detailing how this sum has been calculated.

 

Not sure what defence they would imply they have if you filed against them with the CCA correspondence for the same period attached to your claim.

 

Would certainly report them if only to have their butts kicked.....

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...