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

Advice needed on court summons ***Discontinued****


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4683 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

 

The default was July 2005 listed on my credit file so not quite 6 years.

 

If it's listed as July 2005 on your credit file it stands a good chance the cause of action occured before then. You need to ascertain when the last payment you made was, when the last acknowledgment in writing you made was and very importantly when the cause of action accrued.

 

Do not accept the default date on the files at the CRA as being representative of when the cause of action arose as banks leave accounts open for piling on charges for weeks and months after this.

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I cannot 100% confirm it is SB so guessing it would be risky to claim this?

 

 

 

You can aver it to be SB'ed and put the claimant to strict proof that it is not:

Obviously just include this as a further point in your defence if not 100% sure but if you ask them in the Part 18 for the dates of your last acknowledgment and the date the cause of action arose you should be on the way although I suspect they will just give you the default date unless you specify the cause as being something different.

  • Confused 1

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to ascertaining when exactly the cause of action arose:

IMO as this is an overdraft then the first sign of the breach might be indicated by you exceeding your overdraft limit and failing upon request to bring your ac back within your limit. I suggest that this will be highlighted on your bank statement as the first of a what's likely to be a series of penalty charges. Your last acknowledgment would be the last payment you made after the charges for the breach were first applied.

If the claimant were to aver that the cause of action accrued on the default date then they are also saying that the breach of the terms and conditions of the account did not occur until the default date.

Ergo any penalty charges applied to the account prior to default are unlawful as by their own argument no breach had at that time occured.

 

The claimants cause of action arose when you breached the terms of the account, not when it was defaulted you need to be very clear on the difference as a successful defence might rest on this single point as it's very likely that several weeks or months passed between the two dates.

The default date might have been created by the debt purchaser and often corresponds to the date they purchase the account. It's also just as likely to be an arbitary date when the OC makes the commercial decision to write down the account. What it's very unlikely to be is the date the cause of action arose.

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...