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

Blair, Oliver and Scott Limited.


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4862 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

  • 2 weeks later...

Many Thanks.

 

Very strange (the word bent springs to mind) organisation. Be very careful with this outfit. The Wild West springs to mind. If you receive any letters from this organisation do NOT ring the 0845 number.

 

Just received an apology and saved literally thousands of pounds. Any mither? complain straight away to Trading Standards. Bullies sanctioned by the Bank.

 

and stand your ground !!!!!

Edited by uaruman
clarity
Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly. A very close family friend was made redundant in 2009. Realising that she would have difficulty in dealing with several debts with the Halifax Bank, she contacted them immediately. Up until then she had what could be called an unblemished credit report. The Halifax were slow to respond, and as the weeks passed, the charges increased significantly. Although she made several attempts to reconcile the matter, they insisted that she use a debt management company. They also intimated that if she did, a nominal interest rate of half a percent would be charged.

 

She contacted the CCCS,and after completing various forms, the payment plan began more or less immediately. Nothing more was heard and she received monthly statements confirming her payments, as agreed with the Halifax Bank. (the CCCS are a charity and do not charge for their services)

 

She then started receiving letters from Blair, Oliver and Scott Limited which stated 'Notice of Intended Court Action'. They were demanding payment in full, also giving an 0845 number and suggesting a repayment plan was taken out with them immediately. All she had to do was ring an 0845 number and go from there (these letters were on a weekly basis).

 

The letters are intimidating, full of errors and various company address's can be found in minute lettering at the bottom of the page. They are so small that most people wouldn't even see them. They also quote the 1974 Consumer Credit Act which has long since been superceded. Two applicable land line numbers instead of the 0845 numbers 0131 422 7777 and 01733 338480 are either never answered or constantly engaged. 0845 numbers are classed as Premium Rate Numbers. Whilst I appreciate this is open to debate, and BT will make them very shortly free of charge, you are not allowed to use Premium Rate Numbers in debt related matters.

 

The letters also suggest that it is your interest to start a debt management plan with them. So the 0845 number incur a cost and there is a further charge for their debt management plan..do you get where this situation is leading?

 

I can't be any clearer than that. I contacted Trading Standards on her behalf and she now has a refence number. If this scenario had continued, it was technically a breach of Section 40 of the Adminstration Of Justice Act.

 

Result? All charges since the dates of non payment have been removed and no further interest can be charged. Literally thousands of pounds saved.

 

Hope this helps you and others a little

Edited by uaruman
clarity
Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, I'm not really sure why you are dealing with BOS in this matter, and I also note from some of your postings that you have been advised not to telephone BOS on a 0845 number. My advice is extremely simple and effective.

 

Your first move, immediately, is either a visit to Tradings Standards or to make a simple telephone call to them. Explain your situation clearly and that you are being harassed by BOS.

 

You will then get a reference number. Keep it ! Write a letter then to BOS (recorded delivery) explaining that you have reason to believe that their behaviour is illegal. In fact, judging by your posts, their behaviour does seem to contravene Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act. BOS, in fact, have no more right to collect money from you than I do.

 

(They do however have the right to take you to court, like I do or anybody else for that matter, in a financial dispute. That, however, is a totally separate issue at this moment in time).

 

Explain that from the date of your letter you will, under no circumstances, have any further dealings with them. If you have a written agreement that is irrelevant. Contact Consumer Credit Counselling immediately and notify the Halifax Bank of your reasons and decision to dispense with BOS. There are no charges with CCCS and they have an extremely effective email system you can use. They will also clearly advise you on what you should legally pay(as in within your means). If you receive any further mail from BOS after your recorded delivery letter, contact Trading Standards immediately. Do not, under any circumstances, telephone BOS again !!!.

 

Telephone charges? Postage charges? Make a detailed note and inform them that they will be deducted from the final payment with interest. Will they take you to court for that amount? I doubt it. Would they win? I doubt that as well. Start thinking outside the box!

 

Sit tight and don't be bullied.

Edited by uaruman
clarity
Link to post
Share on other sites

uaruman

 

Many thanks for your detailed post, which I have read with interest and have taken note. I also read your comment regarding CCCS, at the moment I am not inclined to go down this route as over 10 years ago we were were concerned about a change in circumstance (I was working at Rover) and although we were not in difficulty at the time we thought that things MAY become a little tight so took advice from CCCS, now whilst in the main they do offer a very good service, the advice we were given took us down a path of huge consequence and almost cost us our home. So I think for now we will continue our standing order with BOS.

 

With Kind regards

 

Dudley

Edited by Dudley67
spelling correction
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair comment. The CCCS was founded in 1993 and is considered one of the best debt related charities in the UK. For those people interested www.cccs.co.uk.

 

Blair, Oliver and Scott? It beats me why any sane individual would lay out £7.60 just to make a payment to these Cowboys. You know my opinion best left well alone.

Edited by uaruman
clarity
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you about the telephone charges but I didnt know what they were until the bill landed and by that time it was too late.

 

But I fully take on board your comments.

 

Regards

 

Dudley

 

Sorry it wasn't meant as an insult. It just takes the biscuit that a debt company, owned by BOS, is charging you £7.60 for a payment that would be free over the counter at BOS. Think about it long and hard:mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...