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

please can someone help me figure out if welcomes figures are correct?


donkey123
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5137 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's something fishy about their figures but I'm no mathematician, so wondered if some kind soul will help?

 

a) Amount used to settle existing loan agreement £771.10

b) Amount of new cash advanced £2028.90

c) Medicare 24 £200 (which i was told i needed to get to get the loan in the first place)

d) lifecare 24 £0

e) homecare 24 £0

f) collision call £0

g) other £0

 

h) Optional payment protection insurance £819.25 (which i was told i needed to get to get the loan in the first place)

i) Amount of credit (a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h) £3819.25

j) Acceptance Fee £75

 

(they seem to have added this to total amount of loan and not total credit part i) can they do this as presumably they are getting interest on the acceptance fee which wasn't in the total amount of credit but added to the total amount of loan?) I'm confused!

 

k) Total amount of loan £3894.25

 

this next part i can't seem to work out the same figures, can you check and see if its correct please?

 

Amount of monthly payment £158.98

APR 32.50 %

Rate of interest 2.25 % a month

Estimated repayment period 36 months

 

 

 

i worked out that 36 months at 158.98 = £5723.28 (no where on the contract is the total amount payable, which i thought was odd, don't they have to have this?)

 

so total amount of interest is £1829.03

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

*bump* sorry im not good with figures but this will move your post back to the top :)

I am a consumer just like you, please get a second opinion or investigate yourself on anything I advise as I am in no way legally trained. Everything I know has come from the Mighty CAG and fellow CAGGERS. :cool:

 

If I have helped in any way please click my reputation star and make a donation to CAG to enable us all to continue to help each other :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys, so have they got the APR wrong? as they have put 32.5 APR. Also what is the 2.25 % interest, have they worked it out right? if they haven't does this mean the contract is unenforceable?

 

and lastly i read somewhere that if they have charged interest on the acceptance fee, which they have the contract is unenforceable is that right? i noticed that they haven't added it to the total amount of credit, but they have to the total loan amount.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say unenforceable. APR is wrong

 

interest on the acceptance fee is a bit grey in my view, since the Walker Case, but each case is on its on merit me thinks.

 

have a read of this link on unenforceability.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/162851-consumer-credit-agreements-guide.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Donkey 123. Sorry M8 no use to you yet on interest rates and %. Will be soon though, when Ozzy has finished training me up! ( he dosen`t know he`s teaching me yet) lol

 

I think the thing with acceptance fee and interest being charged on it, then putting the whole agreement in to question is up in the air again. This is due to some test cases that were heard in Manchester a while ago now. It has thrown a spanner in the works on a lot of things for Caggers trying to dispute their agreements.

 

There is a thread " Dissecting the Manchester test cases " or something like that. Can`t find it at the mo. but will point you to it ASAP. See if you can find it. It may answer a few things for you.

 

Not much help but we will keep your thread live until the maths guys take a look.

 

cheers, Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cost of credit not shown (interest + arrangement fee) which is a prescibed term. I think they do this so that you dont fully know, without some calculation, the actual cost of your loan this would also include the total payable. This information is required to be shown on the agreement. Also the PPI should be shown as a seperate agreement and signed and paid for separately. I also agree that the APR is wrong. Your agreement is not executed properly and is probably unenforcible. Is it a secured loan? If so you have the possibility of removing this charge due to agreement not being properly executed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, first rule of being an apprentice >>>> GO MAKE THE COFFEE MARK. . . :eek:

 

 

**look at mark muzzling in on my apprentice job!!**white one sugar tea please mark :grin:**

I am a consumer just like you, please get a second opinion or investigate yourself on anything I advise as I am in no way legally trained. Everything I know has come from the Mighty CAG and fellow CAGGERS. :cool:

 

If I have helped in any way please click my reputation star and make a donation to CAG to enable us all to continue to help each other :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

To check if their are other things wrong we would really need to check your contract, post it up for us minus any personnel details now to check your figures.

 

 

First off Ems calculations are bang on . . the APR is calculated at 30.6 .

 

 

Your saying your loan is for 2800 at an APR of 32.50 % over 36 months is :

monthly payment £116.53

interest £1,395.29

total repayable £4,195.29

 

and your insurance is 1019.25

monthly payments £42.42

total interest £507.91

total payable £1,527.16

 

............ so if we add up the interest of the loan and insurance we get 1903.20 add the acceptance fee of 75 is 1978.20 add loan of 2800 is 4778.20 then add insurance which is 5797.45 being total payable back from you to welcome.

 

so if we divide this figure by 36 we get true monthly payment of 161.04 .

 

welcome want you to pay back 158.98 which is total payable of 5723.28. so leaves you out at end of contract by 74.17 which tells me they forgot to intergrate your acceptance fee rather than getting the APR wrong.

  • Haha 1

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

can I add I did this by hand with no template etc and I had 5 kids running round me so if wrong I apologise in advance. . . . lol . . . will double check later but think its right :D . . you defo need to claim your PPI back. I can do the figures for you and also ask them to remove 75 from the loan for the acceptance fee as they forgot to intergrate it into the calculations anyway lol.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ozzy, im impressed!

 

couldnt do that in my head, or by hand, ha,ha.

 

One thing for us all, by claiming this money back would that then mean that there is no breach of prescribed term - and no unenforceability????

 

I would personally, go for unenforceability, let them keep the money!!!

 

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...