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
      • 162 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

OFT Guidance for Debt Collectors Pt 2

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6690 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Charging for debt collection


2.9 Charges should not be levied unfairly.


2.10 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:


a. claiming collection costs from a debtor in the absence of express contractual or other legal provision


b. misleading debtors into believing they are legally liable to pay collection charges when this is not the case, e.g. when there is no contractual provision


c. not giving an indication in credit agreements of the amount of any charges payable on default


d. applying unreasonable charges, e.g. charges not based on actual and necessary costs


e. applying charges which are disproportionate to the main debt.


Debt collection visits


2.11 Those visiting debtors must not act in an unclear or threatening manner.


2.12 Examples of unfair practices are:


a. not making the purpose of any proposed visit clear, e.g. merely stating that collectors or field agents will call is not sufficient


b. visiting a debtor when it is known they are vulnerable, e.g. when a doctor's certificate has been provided stating that the debtor is ill


c. continuing with a visit when it becomes apparent that the debtor is distressed or otherwise vulnerable, e.g. it becomes apparent that the debtor has mental health problems


d. entering a property uninvited


e. not leaving a property when asked to


f. visiting or threatening to visit debtors without prior agreement when the debt is deadlocked or disputed


g. not giving adequate notice of the time and date of a visit


h. visiting debtors, unless requested, at inappropriate locations such as work or hospital.


Statute barred debt


2.13 This guidance applies to the pursuit of debt regardless of its age. We will be carrying out further work on this aspect of debt recovery including analysis of relevant legislation and practice throughout the UK.


2.14 In the past we have dealt with a number of statute barred debt cases governed by the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales. Based on that experience our position with regard to England and Wales remains:


a. we accept legally the debt exists


b. it is the methods by which the debt is collected that can be unfair as follows:


• it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period


• if a creditor has been in regular contact with a debtor before the debt is statute barred, then we do not consider it unfair to continue to attempt to recover the debt


• it is unfair to mislead debtors as to their rights and obligations, e.g. falsely stating or implying that the debt is still legally recoverable and relying on consumers not knowing the relevant legal provisions, and


• continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/07/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6690 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...