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

Me v Phoenix recovery services.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5176 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, im after some advice regarding an account that was on my credit file. The story goes i checked my credit file after been turned down for car finance and found 4 defaults!!:eek:

 

One of these were from Phoenix on behalf of Littlewoods so i did a little digging thanks to the advise and templates given on this great site (cca'd them) and got the reply of no signed agreement.... suprise suprise!

 

A swift account in dispute letter was sent but i also disputed this (and other accounts) with equifax who also contacted them on my behalf. Today got a message through Equifax from Phoenix saying..... "as the customer has requested a copy of the signed agreement and littlewoods are unable to provide this, this entry will be removed from the cutomers credit file in our monthly submission due to littlewoods withdrawing this account from us. We are no longer persuing this account."

 

Good news me thinks! Just recently checked my report and its been removed default and all!!

 

My question is this though, can littlewoods pull the account back and re submit and default again? (knowing how these companys work, probably)

 

(oh and the whole process has taken 1.5 months approx thanks to help of other caggers):):)

 

Hope someone can advise (oh and these are truthfully not my accounts)

Edited by mestonian
Link to post
Share on other sites

i would say not

you are lucky with getting the adverse info removed , something many caggers will jump on.

 

typically it matters not they have no agreement, they still report to the CRA's.

 

well done

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

what about experian, how does your file there show?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

wow

i'm impressed!!!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today got a message through Equifax from Phoenix saying..... "as the customer has requested a copy of the signed agreement and littlewoods are unable to provide this, this entry will be removed from the cutomers credit file in our monthly submission due to littlewoods withdrawing this account from us. We are no longer persuing this account."

 

 

Something fishy here. Phoenix Recoveries UK Ltd SARL is a debt BUYER - Littlewoods could not at any point withdraw the account, as they don't own it any more. They are being economical with the truth.

 

You should also look up

 

Kpohraror V Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119

 

regarding damage to your credit status.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Donkeyb,

 

I see what your saying but surely that would mean that as littlewoods sold the debt to Phoenix then they are satisfied and because Phoenix have removed this entry then thats the end off this little saga? But for how long? Thanks for the link ill have a close look at that case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if they have sold a debt they can't even prove was yours, none of the parties involved has made any attempt to verify the fact.

 

Which company posted the default? When was it originally applied?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The default was actually posted by Phoenix i think but when i was originally digging it went from littlewoods to credit account management then phoenix so i suppose its possible it could have been any. The date the default was applied was 31/12/2007 so im guessing it probably wouldnt have fit in the statutory time scale anyway around christmas but they never provided a copy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...