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

strange tactic - scott & co??


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5095 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, OH got a strange letter from scott and co today. We thought they disappeared as we hadn't heard from them in two years but, here is what they said. (sorry but typing on moby phone.) "As part of our normal AUDIT procedures you are asked to confirm that your balance printed below is correct. If it is please sign against the appropriate statement at the bottom of this letter and RETURN THE WHOLE LETTER in the enclosed pre-paid envelope. There is normally a few days delay before payments are made to the collector are processed to your account. If having allowed for this you believe that there is a difference in your balance, please record the latest details FROM YOUR PAYMENT CARD in the space provided. Please then sign against the appropriate statement at the bottom of this letter and RETURN THE WHOLE LETTER in the enclosed pre-paid envelope. If there is a difference which we are unable to reconcile we may telephone you or write to you asking you to send us your payment card to help us resolve the difference. Thank you for your co-operation. Yours faithfully, L. Bews internal auditor" their capitals not mine. Then it has a column that says "Account Records" date 0/00/00 amount .00 balance 67.53 then TOTAL OUTSTANDING: 67.53. Well, last time they wrote they said they had been to visit but nobody was here. (yea right?) and that we owed like £1200. Why don't we hear from them for two years and now say we only owe 67.53? Why do they ask twice in capitals to RETURN THE WHOLE LETTER? Are they making us an offer here because they know we have no assets to seize or wages to arrest and know we are unlikely to pay them anything more? Anybody else get a letter like that? My instincts tell me to keep the letter they want back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a weird letter to me. It seems that they have a crisis in their office and have lost alot of their paperwork and account iinformation.

 

I would not bother to sign anything as you would be agreeing that some balance does exist and that you do have an agreement with them. If you have been disputing any aspect of the agreement at any point, I would either just leave it or write to them saying that you do not owe them anything.

 

It also sounds suspicious that they want you to send them your payment card (Yeah Right...As If anyone would do that).

Link to post
Share on other sites

By signing and returning the letter you are acknowledging the debt as far as I can tell. This would then start the clock ticking again as regards statute of limitations (6 years - no payment/acknowledgemnt then they can't take court action for this.)

My simple advice would be to ignore them.

If you feel I've helped then by all means click my star to the left...a simple "thank you" costs nothing! ;)

 

Restons MBNA -v- WelshMam

 

MBNA Cards

 

CitiCard

M&S and More

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the replies. Yea, i find it a very strange letter. I have a thing about 'ignoring' things like this. Seems to me it puts the ignorer in a dishonourable position. However, i will not return the letter nor sign anything or send payment card. We do not have a payment card. I think we will just send off a letter saying we don't owe anything and have no payment card. This should keep it clear in view of the statute of limitations act and how can they now claim we owe anymore than £67.53 in future if I have a letter saying that is what they think we owe?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...