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

HFO 72 hour letter re:Monument Debt prob SB'd


stuinn
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4524 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

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I sent a SAR to Barclaycard and received a letter advising they "do not hold any correspondence however all other details requested which are available will be sent to you from the appropriate areas". That was in April and I have chased with not response and this week sent a further letter recorded signed for.

coledog do you want me to send a copy of the documents to you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

stuinn, I think HFO are out of time. The account is now SB. Game over.

 

You MUST send a copy of that letter from TR to the OFT. It claims you are liable for pre-and post-judgment interest at 12% which is, frankly, crap, given that they are in default of providing any agreement they refer to.

 

R-swipes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I know exactly what the letters say - seen it before. Can you be certain last payment was June 2005? If so - send them the SB letter, if not you need to get back onto BC, they will have the info somewhere. Make sure that you report all this to OFT http://www.oft.gov.uk/contactus for the attention of Polly Ashford

Please support CAG and they will support you.

donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, as your last payment was in July 2005, the account is just about statute barred, if not already. They cannot claim it is not, as there are no T&Cs to refer to.

 

They are stuffed. Go on, Bingo, issue a claim and waste some money.

 

stuinn, just noticed that the date you gave us applied to a different card account.

 

You must get back on to Barclaycard and kick up a fuss – we know they DO have the info. Try the director's office if necessary. You must find out the last payment date.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just spoken to Barclaycard Directors office who inform me that the account was sold to HFO in 2006 and Barclaycard did not take any Monument accounts until 2008 therefore do not have any details and I would need to go to HFO. I will be sending the letter as mentioned above however any suggestions on what to do now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I think Barclays are telling fibs.

 

I have a Monument statement dated March 07, acquired by HFO from Barclays for use against another Cagger, which clearly states that Monument is a trading name of Barclays Bank plc.

 

Either that statement used by HFO in court is a forgery, or Barclays are telling fibs. Either way, Barclays DO hold data prior to 2008. I will redact the document and post here as proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just spoken to Barclaycard Directors office who inform me that the account was sold to HFO in 2006 and Barclaycard did not take any Monument accounts until 2008 therefore do not have any details and I would need to go to HFO. I will be sending the letter as mentioned above however any suggestions on what to do now?

 

Barclays acquired Monument in 2002, and sold it to Compucredit in 2007.

 

They are telling you whoppers. The data above proves that Barclays hold information from pre-2008. Call them back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried the customer relations number which unfortunately is immediately disconnected. Telephoned the Directors office again spoke to a different person who said they could not access those details but took the information to pass on as a complaint to the relevant department fro them to contact me within 48 hrs. Probably a further run around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good! They must have access to this via one of their systems, other people have had this same run around - Monument Cards seem to be the worst but also Morgan Stanley which BC are also supposed to manage the data for. You just have to keep on at them

Please support CAG and they will support you.

donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can SAR HFO, but I wonder

just how much information they

will have on the account.

Be careful how you word the request

make sure that there is no possibility

that it could be interpreted as acknowledgment

of the debt.

There is a template in the CAG library,

they have 40 days to reply.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

A colleague has suggested

a summary to a SAR as follows.

''For clarity this a lawful request

for information for which a statutory

fee has been paid

Therefore you must provide ALL the

data you hold including but not limited

to the documents mentioned above.

If you with hold and information or

document at this time, and later rely

on in any court action then the court

will be informed of the breach of the

Data Protection Act.''

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Having spoken to the directors office again they sent an email to the SAR department who did phone me and said they were looking into it. This morning I received the following letter.

http://i781.photobucket.com/albums/yy91/av8boy/HFO/HFOScan6.jpg

The 6 years after the default is the end of Jan 2012 and I am sure that the last payment was in July 05.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...