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

Virgin / MBNA Mastercard Credit Agreement - 07/08/2006 - Is My One Enforceable?


Akamas
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5204 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

Hi all, just wanted to start a new thread for advice on my credit agreement.

 

I recently sent a CCA request and the obligatory £1 postal order to MBNA and received the following documents just within the 12+2 timeframe:

 

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

 

Does anything appear wrong with this agreement? Or does it look enforceable?

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there, welcome to CAG.

 

Looks enforceable to me.

 

As you applied online, a tick will suffice for your signaturelink3.gif.

 

Here's the legislation for this - The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Electronic Communications) Order 2004

 

 

Have a look at these links which may help you understand the enforceabilty of the paperwork (courtesy of 42man & steven4064) -

 

 

Is My Agreement Enforceable - Useful

 

 

Consumer Credit Agreements

 

Have MBNA sent you a Default Notice served under s87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick reply! I have been reading through the forum quite a lot regarding my credit agreements and did beging to think this MBNA one might be the only one to be pretty much airtight. Is there anything other than the tick/signature that might be wrong, for example prescribed terms, interest rates, charges etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there, I have received an agreement from MBNA which is almost identical to the one you have received. However, I believe they have simply typed this up as the address showing on mine is my current address - and not the address I was living at when the agreement was taken out. Is is possible that they have simply constructed an agreement - and if so, how would I prove that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they are able now to re-construct an agreement now, Judge Waksman threw out a load of cases recently and made a statement along the lines that it was acceptable for them to supply a re-constructed copy to satisfy a s78 request, and that we should consider that a 'true copy'! He went as far as to say that it did not need the signature on it and that the address could be added at a later date. What they cannot do with such an agreement is enforce it in court to get a charging order etc. Judge Waxman was basically reinforcing the oppinion that a s78 request is more to satisfy the publics right to information, rather than for them to speculatively request the agreement and then to refuse to pay if the creditor cannot produce it.

 

The problem we are facing with our agreements is that the law had changed by this date to allow ticks on a website box to be a valid signature. This means that it becomes very hard for us to contest whether they have the original agreement, because the original agreement was just a digital page on a website with a checkbox!

 

If you had signed an agreement by hand, and they cannot produce that agreement, then you can claim the account is in dispute until they do produce it. Or you could wait for them to take you to court, and then low and behold produce a valid signed agreement just in time! This has already happened to a few unlucky souls...

 

If you signed up online, then I am not sure what you can do. You might have to go down the route of offering them token payments of £1 a month and requesting that they freeze any interest and charges. If you have a property in your name, or are a joint owner, they may decide to just push for a charging order and basically treat your debt as your responsibility and that you are entirely to blame. The reason they will be far more likely to accept token payments of £1 than to accept no payment at all for a long period of time is due to the Statute of Limitations. If a long period passes with no payment or acknowledgement of debt, creditors start to become worried that you will just dodge paying it entirely. After 6 years have passed they will be unable to recover anything and it will be written off, so they want you to pay them something as it is almost like them keeping a tube in place to drain your blood at a later stage!

 

The more I read about the law in the UK, the more I want to emigrate. The more Judges there are limiting our options through morally corrupt means and protecting the large corporations of bankers, the more I want to leave and never return!!!

 

Take a look at this link:

 

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article6995381.ece

Edited by Akamas
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...