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

Fun & Games with Mckenzie Hall


gizmo2007
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6474 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

Sorry in advance if i have hijacked this post

 

Got a letter from these guy's last month at my old address. I called them up to advise that the debt they was chasing was short settled.

 

They said i needed to prove this - and send them evidence so - i got on to the finance house who issued me with the funds in the 1st place.

 

After Many phone call's spoke to a gentleman there who advised that the debt was indeed short settled, I asked them to inform MH who said they would do so.

 

 

About 3 days later i got a call from the finance company who advised in fact there is an error and that figure of which i was told was short settled was infact what was sold to MH and that they have instructed MH to go ahead and collect.

 

What bugs me is

 

1. They aint even spelt my name correctly

2. They dont have my full address

3. The information they have between them and the finance house is sketchy

 

I called up MH and said if they can prove it then i will pay them the money - they said they will apply for original copies of documets and send me a copy.

 

I am still waiting for these. They want 650 quid off me by end of sept - if i am in the right after they have got the information then they said they will refund me the money.

 

I really dont know what to do. Im sure i have short settled this account.

if i pay them i dont think that i will get the money back.

 

I really need to know what i should do - i dont want a CCJ or anything I am really at my witsend.

 

any information would be great thanks

 

Giz

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on right there! Something isn't quite right here.

 

They don't have your current address, they spelt your name wrong and the information is sketchy but they want you to pay £650 within a week. I could do that with lots of people I know but none of them would pay me. They would tell me to f@@@ o**!

 

For a start make no more phone to Mackenzie Hall or the finance company. Write to both companies requesting full details of the debt, This is the CCA S77/78 letter and it will cost you a £1. There is a link round here somewhere and when I find it I'll post it. It is important you send this letter by recorded delivery. This letter forces Mackenzie Hall and the other company to provide you with full details and a statement of account within 12 working days. Set your calendar. If they fail the debt becomes unenforceable and a judge will laugh them out of court. If they take more than 30 days they commit a criminal offence and a judge would take an even dimmer view.

 

You say the finance company said the settled figure was the sum they sold it to Mackenzie Hall who are now chasing you for £650. Is there a big difference?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I originally got the letter a couple of months back and they said they wanted 650 quid by end of sept.

 

I really dont want to give em my current address - and i have checked my credit file - and all my accounts with the concerned finance company are settled. - The one in question doesnt appear - could be becuase they have spelt my name wrong.

 

Should i pay it or just ignore them - see the original debt they said was 857 or so - but they are willing to accept 657 by the end of sept.

 

But according to the finance company - which bare in mind they said was the short settled figure was 400 odd quid.

 

then they changed there tune and said the 400 odd quid was sold to MH

Link to post
Share on other sites

agree with above sent the CCA S77/78 letter and wait and see what comes back, they cant CCJ you or Default your credit file without providing this information as the account is in dispute - however if they do as DCA love a bit of skulldugary then you will have ample grounds to have these removed

 

good luck and dont correspond via phone anymore, there is a letter to request this in my CapQuest thread - click the link in my signature.

People who haven't made mistakes, haven't made anything!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...