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

Egg rolling back the years and charging you for it!


Bellsinhell
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

Hi there.

Newbie to the forum and I've had good look around and found it to be a very friendly one, i hope this will be well received.

 

I got out a Egg loan of about £17,000 back in September 2003 and was shortly after put out of work, so i defaulted and Egg pasted it on to a collection agency (Moorcroft), who (without fail) I have paid until the loan was repaid in March this year.

On the 29Th of last month I got a very welcoming letter From ARC telling me that unless I made near or all of the payment of £4,112.79 they would start court proceedings against me. Now I have been in touch with both ARC and Egg and they both say the same thing.....That the payment protection had not been added to the loan amount and had gone unpaid.

 

I have now sent off for both my statements and agreement so I'll have to wait to see want has gone on, but this all seems very wrong.

Can they really just turn round after six years and say "oh yeah we missed the payment protection so here is a £4,000 bill for our error"?

 

All help is very much appreciated and i thank you all in advance for your comments.

Helen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi..welcome.......I think you are in a position to say I did not want PPI,and although you have failed to collect something I did not want and I believe was mis-sold to me,I consider the account PAID IN FULL.........Did you SAR them to get statements etc or have you just asked for them to supply the details.if the latter wait until they reply to your letter I did not want PPI,account closed..................will watch out for your thread..........FS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Helen...........send the letter saying you did not want PPI and because it was sold to me as a condition of obtaining the loan,I consider the PPI was mis-sold,and under these circumstances I consider the account paid in full and closed ......the court threat is the first scare tactic DCAs use,I very much believe they are on dangerous ground.............FS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got out a Egg loan of about £17,000 back in September 2003 and was shortly after put out of work, so i defaulted and Egg pasted it on to a collection agency (Moorcroft), who (without fail) I have paid until the loan was repaid in March this year.

 

On the 29Th of last month I got a very welcoming letter From ARC telling me that unless I made near or all of the payment of £4,112.79 they would start court proceedings against me. Now I have been in touch with both ARC and Egg and they both say the same thing.....That the payment protection had not been added to the loan amount and had gone unpaid.

 

I have now sent off for both my statements and agreement so I'll have to wait to see want has gone on, but this all seems very wrong.

Can they really just turn round after six years and say "oh yeah we missed the payment protection so here is a £4,000 bill for our error"?

 

All help is very much appreciated and i thank you all in advance for your comments.

Helen

Helen,

 

Firstly congratulations on your honouring a debt without fail over 7 years even after your circircumstances went sour. For Egg to make a huge cock-up then seven years and full repayment later to hound you with a surprise demand really raises eyebrows. The 6-year statute of limitations I believe starts running from the date of your last payment. In your case you were paying as recently as this year, but you were paying against the amount demanded in 2003, not the amount they have just discovered. Egg are now demanding a debt which they never asked for 7 years ago, so 6 years have elapsed since the time repayment was due, and you never paid against the PPI balance because it was never asked.

 

This is a legal fine point, you would be better off browsing in forum/legal-issues. Or click the blue SEARCH on the top blue bar, click ADVANCED SEARCH, search keyword LIMITATIONS in thread titles.

 

The regulators have heavily swung against EGG on the issue of PPI refunds. In a borderline situation they now give cardholders the benefit of the doubt and rule against Egg, sometimes levying a fine on top of ordering full refund of premiums already paid, plus statutory interest 8% per annum. If you research the origins of your PPI "enrolment". If there is no proof you willingly enrolled, and there is no chance of you claiming against PPI, then more than likely the regulators will take your side.

 

Best of luck. ;)

 

 

17 PPI battles won, 2 lost:

34 weeks - 25 APR 2007 - won PPI before court -Annalh v Egg/DLA/Eversheds ** Judgement given by court **

 

16 weeks - 19 JUN 2007 - won PPI in court - Empire strikes back v Egg Card Repayment Insurance.

 

08 weeks - 01 AUG 2007 -won PPI before court - Wednesday 1867 poss vs Egg ( 12)

 

49 weeks - 22 AUG 2007 - JULI99 - lost PPI in court - Scrambled Egg (12)

 

35 weeks - 07 JAN 2008 - phatram - won PPI, case stayed, stay lifted, Egg settled in full before court (was self-employed and never eligible) - http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/payment-protection-insurance-ppi/87077-egg-credit-card-ppi-3.html#post1314773

 

72 weeks - 07 FEB 2009 - oggy1 – PPI refunded by Egg before court because CCA shows no evidence of cardholder consent- ppi against egg --wont repay!!

 

01 weeks - 01 AUG 2009 - PPI refunded with interest - http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/egg/212600-shedsounds-egg-quick-win.html

 

?? weeks - 06 AUG 2009 - alsindebt - PPI refunded - Thanks to CAG

 

08 weeks - 02 SEP 2009 - fireyjack - PPI refunded - http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/egg/32603-successful-claims.html#post2403402

 

113 weeks - 13 NOV 2009 - e_inspired - PPI satisfactory settlement with DN rolled back http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/egg/113999-egg-dlc-final-straits-4.html#post2573214

 

01 week - 19 NOV 2009 - Militant Consumer's Friend v Egg Loans

 

00 week - 07 DEC 2009 - BSC - PPI refunded immediately on request - http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/egg/236975-egg-1-cc-1-a.html#post2629798

 

02 weeks - 19 DEC 2009 - baileyb00 - PPI refunded in full after one letter - Egg Charges - Can I claim PPI? ***WON*** (PPI)

 

01 weeks - 11 JAN 2010 - Declaraion - PPI refunded in full after one phone calllink3.gif - Egg Ppi

 

03 weeks - 21 JAN 2010 - rkm123 - PPI reclaim rejected by foslink3.gif - http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/egg/240971-egg-ppi-have-filed.html#post2716510

 

52 weeks - 23 JAN 2010 - full £1,100 refund of premiums for unrequested (unticked) PPI - http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/egg/164090-bathgatebuyer-egg-2.html

 

?? weeks - 20FEB2010 - Billy goat gruff - EGG PPI Refund +8% . 03MAR2010 - refunded into bank account.

 

78 weeks - 11MAY2010 - DEC22 - PPI refund after foslink3.gif intervention - Successful Claims

 

?? weeks - 19JUN2010 - £1900 PPI refund after 1 letter - Me Vs Egg Loan

 

01 weeks - 08JUL2010 - PPI full refund + 8% p.a. interest within 10 days - star12 v egg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, but before you defaulted due to losing your job, you would presumably have been paying the PPI payments automatically in with your monthly payments (maybe without realising it). As you lost your job, you should therefore have qualified to claim against the PPI to cover the loan payments?

You definitely need to send a Subject Access Request to Egg, to get to the bottom of this.

Tell the DCA the account is in dispute regarding the PPI and you are awaiting the Subject Access Request. At the same time, to make them back off, send the DCA a CCA request too if you haven't done so already.

 

Kind regards,

 

Elsa x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Helen, 2 separate responses:

 

(1) To invalidate Egg's latest demand on the grounds of 6-year Statute of Limitations. To succeed in this you would need to trawl for precedents and advice, best to open a separate thread in Legal-Issues forum. Even if you win on this there remains a small risk that Egg will not go to court to claim the debt, but still pester you through DCAs and blacken your credit rating. A few months ago a Mercantile Court judge ruled that this practice would be ok. The OFT frowns on this, but whether they would do more than frown is questionable.

 

(2) If the circumstances of your PPI enrolment turn out to be such that it fits regulatory definition of mis-selling, then not only will your outstanding unpaid PPI premiums balance be wiped to zero, but your PPI premiums paid up till 2003 will now be refunded to you in full as a lump sum plus 8% p.a. interest. This would be the cleaner end -- if yours fits PPI mis-selling criteria.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...