Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • First of all, I'm not sure why you want to given 30 days to do the repair. It is excessive. I have the sense that you feel that you have to be reasonable in order to gain the approval of the court if that's the way it goes. You certainly should be reasonable but 30 days is excessive. Frankly I don't think that you should get the vehicle repaired by Cinch. They have undermined confidence. They have been notified of your quotation and the cause of the problem and they either haven't responded or they have declined to help. You have no way of knowing that if they are allowed to touch your vehicle, that they will do a quality job. I would suggest that the best thing to do is to get the vehicle repaired and then send them the bill. One them that this is what is going to happen and that if they don't pay you within seven days of receiving the bill then you will sue them. So I would book the car in for repairs on a date about 10 days from now. I would then inform Cinch in a letter of claim that the car is now booked in on XXX date. They have already had the inspection report in the estimate for repairs. You're paying the bill and seven days after that if they haven't reimburse you against the bill which you will submit to them, you will have them without any further notice. This will give them about 14 days to respond with the payment. You will have your car repaired and if they refuse – which they probably will – then you issue the claim papers without any more mucking around. If this appeals to you then draft a letter of claim which expresses this plan. Book the car in tomorrow for the work. Once you know the date then jiggle the dates of your letter around so that Cinch have 14 days before you sue them
    • TINY applies here... tough It's Now Yours.  its a person to person private sale  it's not covered by any rules/regulations at all. even if the MOT was fraud a county court claim is not the place to address this issue and most certainly not using the seller as any defendant against such, nor using it as an excuse to try and get out of buying the car and getting a refund. the claim is a dead duck. simply do AOS and file a defence stating this was a private sale between 2 private individuals, the car was test driven and the buyer found no faults nor were any aware of by the seller. dx
    • You can try & persuade them not to prosecute even up to minutes before the case is heard, approaching the prosecutor on the day. IF they agree, you’d have to be able to settle the agreed amount there and then, not by payment plan. You may find it hard to persuade them, but no harm in trying if your aim is to avoid a criminal conviction (which isn’t the end of then world…. Check out the NACRO and Unlock websites) if you don’t get offered an admission instructive settlement and it goes in front of the Magistrates Bench it will no longer matter about persuading TfL you won’t reoffend The circumstances might be offered to the Magistrates in mitigation, but in terms of if they find you guilty or not, it will be in the facts of if you failed to show a valid ticket when asked (which you didn’t, and it doesn’t seem you have any of the statutory defences, so a conviction seems inevitable IF TfL don’t agree an administrative settlement as an alternative to prosecution)
    • copy of some lease pages-compressed.pdfHello Lolerz I have uploded some pages of the lease. Working on some other paperwork but only have my phone so finding it slow.  
    • Thankyou very much for your help. There was no oil leak when it went for the mot and the buyer said the oil leak was after it broke down so around 10 days after he bought it. He said it had been taken to a garage who said the car had the hole in the engine block and believed it was a fraudulent mot. But we haven't seen any report.
  • 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
      • 160 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

Debt Management Companies

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5115 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hi all, I wonder if this is an interesting point of contention:

I used a debt management company for about 30 months, who charged me £ 100.= per month for their services. (keeping DCA's from calling me, or stop them from writing to me and harrassing me etc etc. and the usual stuff.) They told me "You will not have to deal with anymore phonecalls or official documents once we are handling your account. (that was not true for a start!)

Anyway, because of the pressure, we thought that at the time this was a good idea. After about 30 month, we decided that it was time to take matters in our own hands, and that it would be a much better idea to take the monthly £100,= and use that to add to our repayments. Then we found this wonderful site and have since started to send out requests for CCA's, which we are now processing. Lots to be told on that.


What I now would like to know is the following: Aren't the debt management companies, when they start to act and manage your debts on your behalf, responsible for verifying whether debts that they manage on your behalf, and for which service you pay them a fee, are indeed legally enforceable before they phone the creditors and agree some sort of half hearted repayment schedule under the expected 'due diligence' exercise they are required to make, so that they can deal with or 'manage' your debts in a professional and responsible manner?


I would dearly like to take the crooks I dealt with to court and claim my monthly fee back on the basis that they were negligent and failed to apply 'due diligence' to see whether the debts in question were enforceable or not and thus deliver the contracted services!! ( approx 30 X £100.=)


Is there anybody on the forum who knows anything about this sort of stuff??


I am curious, not only that, but the £3000 in accumulated wasted fees would come in very handy to pay off some of the debts!!!!


Anybody can give me advice on this please?




Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had a simliar problem and would like to know if anything can be done with claiming back money from these companys. I have been charged £200 upfront fee, which I am most sure wasnt the amount that was told to me at the begining . I am on benifits and I phoned the debt management company today and they advised me that I would be best off cancelling and [aying the people directly. They havent provided information requested by one company that I now know of who are now threatning further action and demanding money off me.

I was paying £20 a week from begining of october and they have only just started making small payments to the companys inthe last three weeks only being 10% of the total amount owed.

one of the companies also that I owed money to that they have paid is southbank captial who i have found out tonight shouldnt really be taking money as they are not licenced, so refering to the above case is this something we can use against the DMC?

Any advice appriciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Karmaceutical,

Yup, it looks to me like you have similar reasons, and I believe there are many more of us, who have wasted tens of thousands of pounds on these companies, which are basically 'bloodsuckers' Their business is to earn money over the back of those that are in financial trouble. I am not for a minute suggesting that they don't do anything at all; unfortunately the only thing they do do, is negotiate a low (????) rate of repayment on behalf of the debtor. They don't challenge, they don't ask, they certainly don't manage. A quick setup on transfer of minor sums on a monthly basis, which in my case probably took no more than 15 mins complete, which I could have done myself. When you miss a month, the act like DCA's, and as soon as you decide to stop the agreement, they stop talking to you and refuse any further communications. I wonder if there is a similar way to legally force them to return all documents to you. An amended Request for CCA or a SAR perhaps? Anybody who knows? Anybody who can help?



Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Surfer01,

Yes I agree, and sorry, but I have to add, I know this now. At the time I had never heard of CCC, let alone Payplan. So went with one that sounded good! Their name sounds like they are solicitors! In the process they took my (original) papers, never returned them and p[aid my fees to keep the creditors and DCA's poff my back. The calls and letters never ceised as they faithfully promised, and which I accepted in good faith. Now I have taken it all back, I have CCA'd all of them, and find some don't have properly executed C agreements. My argument is that they failed in their duties of Care to check whether my Credit agreements were enforceable and therefore compelled me in a) making payments that I should not have paid. and b) they did not apply due diligence on my state of affairs. I don't even know whether they actually did do CCA requests and when unenforceable, they just kept charging me? So, if you go back to my original post, do we have a case for asking the fees back??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose a lot depends on the type of agreement that you signed with them. In order to help you we probably would need to see the agreement along with the T & Cs but with all your detaisl removed. Unfortunatley what they tell you verbally and what is in the contract are two different things. What were they supposed to do for their monthly fee of £100?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Surfer01,

Thanks for your reaction.

I agree, that is a good starting point. I need to delve into the 'archives' and see if we still have it. If not, I will have to construe something that compels them to send me a 'eligible true copy' of the original agreement. I don't think this can be achieved with a variation of the CCA Request, because it would fall under a different law or section. I will have to write to them, I suppose by recorded delivery and see what happens. I'll get back on this, I need to speak to 'her who is in charge'. I don't know where the papers are 'hidden'. I suspect that, like DCA's, they will know immediately what is going on as soon as they receive my letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites



Yes, thjat's a good idea. I was trying to avoid having to spend the tenner, but if I want to pursue this, I suppose that is the best solution.

Thanks Surfer01. I'll do that this week-end.



Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...