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

Lowell And Old Egg Card Debt


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4772 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

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest HeftyHippo

banks sometimes send a recon agreement even when they have the original. Sometimes its because its too difficult or costly to retrieve the original. Why bother when they can dish out a recon in half an hour? Sometimes, I think its because they believe a recon is just the same as the original and does the same job. Sometimes, I think its simply because they either want to be awkward when ever they can, or they want to cause an element of uncertainty by never confirming or denying they have the original.

 

A SAR will reveal if they have the original.

 

By all means write and ask them to confirm if they have the original, you will almost certainly get a reply that evades the issue and states that they complied with the CCA request by providing the info they did, and that the statute allows them to send a document that does not contain the signature boxes.

 

Does such a response prove they think the recon does the same as the original, does it show they just want to be awkward by refusing a yes or no question, or does it show their policy is to neither admit or deny they have the original? whatever the motives, they will almost certainly never answer he question and will simply state they have complied with your request.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harrassed Senior

 

Now I have managed finally to upload images do you think letter you posted in egg again is still appropriate if so it will be in the post first thing in the morning.

 

Also please let me know if I should send it to Lowells or EGG

 

Hey more awake today managed 5 hours sleep

 

OSW

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Posted earlier in another thread and now can't find it ?

 

I am being chased for CC with Egg it has taken them 3 years to send a CCA when it arrived there was no original T&C's I contacted ny rep who told me debt have been written off however she contacted me last week to tell me that she mixed up files and again they are chasing it ?

 

I know that things have changed in time but it does not state any credit limit and interest rate etc.. differ throughout the doc.

But was looking today at it and wondering when does the clock start ticking on the 6 year time limit ? If debt enforcable then wouldn't the action have to be taken by Egg not DCA ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi one

 

Six years starts from cause of action; basically the last date you paid or acknowledged in writing.

 

Proceedings can only be taken by the owner of alleged debt, ie Egg.

 

Egg are flogging it all off to Barclay shortly, which should helpfully confuse them greatly.

 

love

 

vic

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Lowell And Old Egg Card Debt
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...