Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • dx100uk
      Big Motoring World Leeds

      By dx100uk · Posted

      how did you pay them? dx  
    • NewsBot
      [email protected] (Clone of FCA Authorised Firm)

      By NewsBot · Posted

      Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
    • dx100uk
      NPC/DCB(L) Vanishing Windscreen PCN Claimform - Taxi - Appealed - No Parking Or Waiting At Anytime - St Thomas Hospital, London, Se1 7eh.

      By dx100uk · Posted

      what defence did you file by the 19th april please? dx  
    • Johnny1 leg
      2010 Loan Debt from Dubai bank last paid 2009 and IDR letters by Email

      By Johnny1 leg · Posted

      An update - Still receiving emails and letters - but have been getting text messages too. nothing aggressive just asking me to get in touch.    the text makes it look like it from the bank on first glance - it reads -   'the banks name' would like to dicuss our recent communication...etc... then lists IDR phone number and email FYI - reporting them as spam
    • PhoenixCab
      Big Motoring World Leeds

      By PhoenixCab · Posted

      Hello, After seeing all of the posts about BMW on here I really wish I hadn't even considered them! I bought a used car from them over the weekend, one specifically which had a reversing camera and cruise control in the advert. I was foolish at the time of purchase and didn't check to see these functions work on the test drive (totally my fault). Now that the car is home I've checked and checked and neither of these functions are available. I even checked on Parkers and it seems that no Skoda Kamiq '21 models come with any parking cameras at all. When buying the car, I was told all that was needed was 'Four signatures and £500' to secure it. I was never shown any of the documents, and instead the sales rep opened a box on his iPad and asked me to sign. He had been complaining about the length of time some customers take these days all throughout my time with him. (Again) foolishly I signed. In my email inbox I now have four attachments from BMW, one of which is my signature under a letter which says that the cars don't need to match the advertisements online, or have any of the features that a sales rep talks about. I realise that I've made mistakes in not doing my due diligence here, but thought I might as well ask the experts here if I have any rights left to claim that the car was miss-advertised, or if I unknowingly signed them away? Thanks in advance

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Paying A Loan Agrement On A Credit Card, Which Is Incorrectly Executed....

emanevs
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5019 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

emanevs

emanevs

Posted
  • Author
Posted
HAHAHAHA. No, I didn't ask for it to be moved. But I DO think its new home is somewhat appropriate. Unfortunately, you credit me with far more powers than I actually possess, and I'm afraid I have upset too many who DO have power, for me to have any influence on what goes on here.

 

I suspect that someone on the site team finds your theory hilarious.

 

OK, I'll bite... point me in the direction of Martin Lewis's Marvellous Nuggets of Wisdom where he says this is a sensible thing to do. I'd love to tell him he's talking shoite. :D

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol: ;-)

 

HERE IS ALL THE HARD WORK DONE FOR YOU!!!!

 

Section 75 refunds: Free protection for ALL spending...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Fester Tester

Fester Tester

Posted
Posted

I'll simply quote from his page (and I'm very upset that I cannot fault him after all)...

 

A. While the bulk of claims are made to credit card providers, the law also applies to other types of credit agreement (except where the supplier is also the creditor, eg for some car finance).

 

And in any case, the provision of credit is NOT the same as supplying you with goods.

 

I trust this clarifies things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
emanevs

emanevs

Posted
  • Author
Posted

have you seen the OFT leaflet 303??

 

I didnt pay using a welcsum credit card so your point is wrong.

 

supplier of credit - the ****

credit grantor - credit card (who pays the **** with a cash payment to the supplier of credit)

debtor - emanevs

 

ITS THE MISREPRESENTION OR BREACH OF CONTRACT THAT IS IMPORTANT.

 

EQUAL LIABILITY UNDER S75 OF CCA 194.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fester Tester

Fester Tester

Posted
Posted

In which case, your assumptions are even funnier.

 

I do see what you are trying to say here, but the truth is, the scanario you imagine is a little different in reality. You have NOT used your card to buy anything. You have simply used it to part repay an existing loan.

 

I'm sorry, but I am a very simple person who needs everything spelt out in plain English. So unless you quote the exact part of ML's blurb, I just cannot see that he is backing you up here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
emanevs

emanevs

Posted
  • Author
Posted

OK, fair enough.

 

I know its a long shot, but to be honest I can see some merit in it.

 

Its no different to this:

 

1) Welcome 'supply' me with credit

2) my credit card pays the loan amount of £400 quid

3) the supply of credit was misdescribed by the fact that the interest rates are incorrect.

4) welscum and my credit card are jointly liable for the misdescripton or breach of contract on the supply of fautly credit.

5) I reclaim all of my 'losses' - thousdands of it!

 

hope that makes a bit of sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fester Tester

Fester Tester

Posted
Posted

No, no, no and no.

 

NO... you have not bought anything from Welcome. And you cannot argue that you used the loan to buy anything either, since that would make Welcome, technically, a third party and so S75 does not apply.

 

NO... A loan is NOT goods. (And do beware the dangers inherent in assuming your interest has been incorrectly calculated, as it's not usually the case that YOU will have calculated anything accurately.)

 

NO... you cannot argue faulty credit. Ignore for the moment that a loan is not "goods", then how is the credit "faulty"? Have you been prejudiced by them giving you money? Did they bung you a handful of forged tenners? No? Thought not.

 

No you don't. You've even got THAT wrong. Only if you have completely paid for the "goods", albeit only part of it with a credit card, would you have been entitled to that full amount to be refunded. I repeat... You have NOT bought anything, or been supplied with goods.

 

I really can't make it any plainer. If you can't grasp it from the above, I'll never convince you. And so I can only say, I'm dying to see what the response will be to your LBA from your credit card company. Now THAT will be worth a bit more than a giggle in The Bear Garden.

Link to post
Share on other sites
emanevs

emanevs

Posted
  • Author
Posted
No, no, no and no.

 

NO... you have not bought anything from Welcome. And you cannot argue that you used the loan to buy anything either, since that would make Welcome, technically, a third party and so S75 does not apply.

 

TRUE - I DID NOT BUY ANYTHING FROM WELCOME. HOWEVER, IF YOU BOUGHT A FAULTY TV FROM A*GOS, A*GOS WOULDNT MAKE THE TV EITHER SO YOUR ARGUMENT HERE FALLS FLAT.

 

YOU ALSO HAVE MISSED THIS OFF OUR FRIEND 'MARTIN'

 

"I ordered and paid £15,991 in full for a new car but before I took delivery the trader went into liquidation.

 

Thankfully I had paid the first £100 deposit on my Barclaycard Goldfish credit card. So I made a Section 75 claim. It took 6 months but this week I received a credit to my card of the whole amount, just from having paid the first £100 on my card."

 

HOW DID THIS CHAP GET BACK £15,991 THEN???

 

 

NO... A loan is NOT goods. (And do beware the dangers inherent in assuming your interest has been incorrectly calculated, as it's not usually the case that YOU will have calculated anything accurately.)

 

TRUE - A LOAN IS NOT GOODS. HOWEVER, IN THE SAME WHAY A CREDIT CARD AGREEMENT IS REGULATED BY THE CCA 1974, A LOAN IS COVERED BY THE ACT - BUT IT HAS TO BE REGULATED - OF WHICH THE LOAN AGREEMENT WAS.

 

NO... you cannot argue faulty credit. Ignore for the moment that a loan is not "goods", then how is the credit "faulty"? Have you been prejudiced by them giving you money? Did they bung you a handful of forged tenners? No? Thought not.

 

THE CREDIT AGREEMENT WAS FAULTY - FACT. IT MISLEAD US IN THINKING THE LOAN WOULD COMPLETE IN XXXX YEARS, BUT ACTUALLY IT WILL NOT. IT WILL TAKE YYYY YEARS. IN ADDITION, THE LOAN AGREEMENT MISDESCRIBED HOW INTEREST WOULD BE CALCULATED.

 

THE IMPORTANT PART IS THE MISDESCRIBING....

 

....AND I HAVENT EVEN STARTED ON THE AGREEMENT BEING IMPROPERLY EXECUTED........

 

No you don't. You've even got THAT wrong. Only if you have completely paid for the "goods", albeit only part of it with a credit card, would you have been entitled to that full amount to be refunded. I repeat... You have NOT bought anything, or been supplied with goods.

 

NO, NO, NO - SEE MARTIN LEWIS LINK I UPLOADED, AND ONCE AGAIN READ IT.

 

FROM WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOVE IS THAT YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A FULL REFUND ON CREDIT CARD PURCHASES TO THE FULL AMOUNT.

 

THERE ARE MANY, IF NOT THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE RECLAIMED THE WHOLE AMOUNT

 

 

AGAIN, MY FRIEND YOU ARE REALLY INCORRECT....

 

I really can't make it any plainer. If you can't grasp it from the above, I'll never convince you. And so I can only say, I'm dying to see what the response will be to your LBA from your credit card company. Now THAT will be worth a bit more than a giggle in The Bear Garden.

 

I CANNOT MAKE IT ANY PLAINER EITHER....

 

LETS KEEP THIS CIVILISED, AND CONSIDER MY THOUGHTS ON THIS.

 

I DONT REALLY SEE THE NEED FOR SARCASM ON THIS, AS WE ARE ALL TRYING TO HELP.

 

AS I SAID BEFORE, MANY "SENIOR" CAGGERS HAVE ALL TOUTED AGREEMENTS UNENFORCEABLE (INCLUDING MINE) AND ALL I HAVE HAD FROM YOU IS BORDERLINE INSULTS.

 

C'MON, GROW UP A BIT AND ENJOY THE DISCUSSION.........

 

YOU WOULD BE NO GOOD IN A LIVE TV DEBATE!!!!

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

PS. PERHAPS YOU WORK FOR WELCOME? :lol::lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
wannabedebtfreesoon

wannabedebtfreesoon

Posted
Posted

"I ordered and paid £15,991 in full for a new car but before I took delivery the trader went into liquidation.

 

Thankfully I had paid the first £100 deposit on my Barclaycard Goldfish credit card. So I made a Section 75 claim. It took 6 months but this week I received a credit to my card of the whole amount, just from having paid the first £100 on my card."

 

HOW DID THIS CHAP GET BACK £15,991 THEN???

I believe the operative words above are "GET BACK", as in it was his money he had a right to it back.

There was a debtor-creditor-supplier relationship for goods!

 

 

Debtor-himself

Creditor-Barclaycard

Supplier-Car dealership

Goods-THE CAR

 

He paid IN FULL for the car but never received it because there was a problem with the supplier, but because some of it was paid on his credit card, (regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974), he was entitled to get all of HIS money back under section 75.

 

And I definitely DON'T work for welcome or any other thieving barstewards, I just don't want to see anybody get further in to debt by paying their loans on their credit cards in the hope they can get loads of money.

 

If you have that many issues with welcome's agreement, take them to court!

Link to post
Share on other sites
emanevs

emanevs

Posted
  • Author
Posted
"I ordered and paid £15,991 in full for a new car but before I took delivery the trader went into liquidation.

 

Thankfully I had paid the first £100 deposit on my Barclaycard Goldfish credit card. So I made a Section 75 claim. It took 6 months but this week I received a credit to my card of the whole amount, just from having paid the first £100 on my card."

 

HOW DID THIS CHAP GET BACK £15,991 THEN???

 

I believe the operative words above are "GET BACK", as in it was his money he had a right to it back.

 

There was a debtor-creditor-supplier relationship for goods!

 

 

Debtor-himself

Creditor-Barclaycard

Supplier-Car dealership

Goods-THE CAR

 

He paid IN FULL for the car but never received it because there was a problem with the supplier, but because some of it was paid on his credit card, (regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974), he was entitled to get all of HIS money back under section 75.

 

And I definitely DON'T work for welcome or any other thieving barstewards, I just don't want to see anybody get further in to debt by paying their loans on their credit cards in the hope they can get loads of money.

 

THEY WONT UNLESS THEY HAVE A VALID REASON TO CLAIM......

 

If you have that many issues with welcome's agreement, take them to court! I HAVE!!!!

ABOVE

Link to post
Share on other sites
wannabedebtfreesoon

wannabedebtfreesoon

Posted
Posted

Ok have it your way, good luck.

 

Your post quoted below though, I find very unsettling. Prove it yourself first and then tell others to follow or you could be getting a lot of vulnerable people in to a lot of hot water. Do you really want that on your conscience??

 

And if you havent made a credit card payment yet on a misdescribed loan

 

MAKE ONE!!!!!

 

ha,ha,

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fester Tester

Fester Tester

Posted
Posted

You are actualy answering and making my point Emanevs. The key word is PURCHASED!!!

 

You do NOT purchase a loan. You received no goods, ergo there was nothing to misdescribe, go faulty, not be delivered, or whatever.

 

What you are after is FREE MONEY. And as always, the greedy can't see beyond what they want to see.

 

The way I see it is this: not only do you want to have your agreement declared unenforcable, but you also want to double your money.

 

I've had enough. The time for sarcasm has gone... now it's time for plain speaking.

 

IF YOU CAN'T SPOT THE OBVIOUS FLAWS IN THIS ARGUMENT, YOU HAVE THE IQ OF A ROCKING HORSE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
car2403

car2403

Posted
Posted

As for the misdescribing, there are tolerances within APR allowances, so unless you have additional information you want to share, that's a none starter also.

 

Yes, if an interest rate is misstated, the agreement may be unenforceable. But then, I may win the Lotto at the weekend also. :rolleyes:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
beyondhope

beyondhope

Posted
Posted
And We Have The "senior Caggers" To Thank For All Telling Us That Our Loan Agreements Are Unenforceable....

 

Where Are They All Now???

 

 

Dont start me on that one!

I am a consumer just like you, please get a second opinion or investigate yourself on anything I advise as I am in no way legally trained. Everything I know has come from the Mighty CAG and fellow CAGGERS. :cool:

 

If I have helped in any way please click my reputation star and make a donation to CAG to enable us all to continue to help each other :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites
citizenB

citizenB

Posted
Posted

This thread has been returned to the BEAR GARDEN.

 

This has to be a spoof, no one could seriously consider that they could take out a loan, pay it off with a credit card and then because they believe the agreement to be incorrectly executed.. use the provision under the credit card terms and conditions to hold the Credit Card supplier jointly responsible for the return of monies paid.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
BEBOBEBO

BEBOBEBO

Posted
Posted
Dont start me on that one!

 

Nor me!!!, Famous last words "I'll do you a Letter" :lol::lol::lol:

As always please check and double check what myself and other Caggers inform.

 

If you like my Post please dont be shy give my Scales a little tickle :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
emanevs

emanevs

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
As for the misdescribing, there are tolerances within APR allowances, so unless you have additional information you want to share, that's a none starter also.

 

Yes, if an interest rate is misstated, the agreement may be unenforceable. But then, I may win the Lotto at the weekend also. :rolleyes:

 

have a look on legal tools

EDIT

Edited by MARTIN3030
No proof of permissions to post these links.
Link to post
Share on other sites
emanevs

emanevs

Posted
  • Author
Posted
He/she doesn't just want monies paid to be returned CB. He/she is after the full amount of the loan.

 

Double bubble.

 

"it" is looking for a repayment of the monies paid.

 

no double bubbles - would be nice tho!

 

AND IN ANY EVENT:

 

WHATS THE DIFFERENCE OF THIS AND A DOGEY TV......?

 

AND OUR FRIEND MARTIN L*WIS!!!!

 

:lol::lol:

PS. WHY IS THIS BACK IN THE BEAR GARDEN????

Link to post
Share on other sites
car2403

car2403

Posted
Posted (edited)
have a look on legal tools

 

 

 

And that means...

 

PS. WHY IS THIS BACK IN THE BEAR GARDEN????

 

Sorry, friend, it's in the BG because I have admin tools and you don't. Of course, if you disagree with this, you can complain to Admin (admin @ consumeractiongroup.co.uk) who will review 'my' decision for you, but I suspect it will remain here until you either answer questions posed about the situation you seemingly believe we all understand, but clearly don't, or state the reasoning that you believe what you are saying is right and true, in the legal sense. Without any of that, this thread is dangerous to those reading it and belongs in the BG.

Edited by MARTIN3030

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5019 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...