Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm at work now but promise to look in later. Can you confirm how you paid the first invoice?  It wasn't your fault if the signal was so poor and there was no alternative way to pay.  There must be a chance of reversing the charge with your bank.  There are no guarantees but Kev  https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09766749/officers  has never had the backbone to do court so far.  Not even in one case,  
    • OK  so you may not have outed yourself if you said "we". No matter either way you paid. Snotty letter I am surprised that they were so quick off the mark threatening Court. They usually take months to go that far. No doubt that as you paid the first one they decided to strike quickly and scare you into paying. Dear Chuckleheads  aka Alliance,  I am replying to your LOCs You may have caught me the first time but that is  the end. What a nasty organisation you are. You do realise that you now have now no reason to continue to pursue me after reading my appeal since you know that my car was not cloned. Any further pursuit will end up with a complaint to the ICO that you are breaching my GDPR.  Please confirm that you have removed my details from your records. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I haven't gone for a snotty letter this time as they know that you paid for your car in another car park. So using a shot across their bows .  If it doesn't deter them and they send in the debt collectors or the Court you will then be able to get more money back from them for  breachi.ng your data protection than they will get should they win in Court-and they have no chance of that as you have paid. So go in with guns blazing and they might see sense.  Although never underestimate how stupid they are. Or greedy.
    • Thank you. Such a good point. They did issue all 3 before I paid though. I only paid one because I didn’t have proof of parking that time, only for two others.    Unfortunately no proof of my appeal as it was just submitted through a form on their website and no copy was sent to me. I only have the reply. I believe I just put something like “we made the honest mistake of using the incorrect parking area on the app” and that’s it. Thanks again for your help. 
    • They are absolute chuckleheads. You paid but because you entered a different car park site also belonging to them they are pursuing you despite them knowing what you had done. It would be very obvious to everyone, including Alliance that your car could not have been in two places at the same time. Thank you for posting the PCN so quickly making it a pity that you appealed since there are so many things wrong with it that you as keeper are not liable to pay the charge. They rarely accept appeals since that would mean they lose money but they have virtually no chance of beating you in Court. Very unlikely that they will take you to Court given the circumstances. Just in case you didn't out yourself as the driver could you please post up your appeal.
    • Jasowter I hope that common sense prevails with Iceland and the whole matter can be successfully ended. I would perhaps not have used a spell checker just to prove the dyslexia 🙂 though it may have made it more difficult to read. I noticed that you haven't uploaded the original PCN .Might not be necessary if the nes from Iceland is good. Otherwise perhaps you could get your son to do it by following the upload instructions so that we can appeal again with the extra ammunition provided by the PCN. Most of them rarely manage to get the wording right which means that you as the keeper are not liable to pay the charge-only the driver is and they do not know the name and address of the driver. So that would put you both in the clear if the PCN is non compliant.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

HP Problem been fast tracked so help needed


steveoram1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4527 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

I'm currently trying to help out a mate with his HP agreement. Story as follows -: He bought a car on HP while at the same time part exing another car which was in a bit of negative equity. He wanted to keep his payments at a certain level and was told by the salesman that to do this he would have to chip in just over 4 grand which he did. 20 odd months down the line and he decides to voluntarily terminate the agreement but turns out he can't as the 4 grand is not shown on his HP agreement at all. He has proof that he paid this to the garage as he has his bank statements etc. from the time. The other strange thing is that the car which was advertised on Autotrader as being up for £22,995 is shown as £25,668 total cash price on his HP agreement. We have spoken to Autotrader and have an email from them to confirm this was the price. We have had an allocation hearing and the case has been fast tracked but we have been advised to amend the POC by the judge to better state these facts. I would appreciate any help with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to tell us all the info on the HP agreement.

 

Car price

deposit (ie px price of car he pxed)

amount financed

any other additional extras (warranty, PPI, gap insurance etc)

interest charge

length of agreement

total amount payable

 

I suspect that the car the delaer took in part exchange has been written bacvk by £4k as otherwise the dealer would have a car thats £4k too deat on his books.. and you get no VAT relief for cars you lose mnoey on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Docs read as follows:

 

Cash Price 25,668

Advance Payment 0

HP Charges £4675

Credit Facility Fee A £150

Credit Facility Fee B £90

Purchase Fee £10

Total Charge For Credit £4925

 

Duration 60 Months

Total Amount Payable £30613

One Repayment Of £656.05

58 Payments of £506.05

Final Payment £606.05

APR 7.4%

 

On the invoice the car is shown as £25478

Plus Tax at £210 for 12 months RFL

 

There are no other extras, insurances etc.

 

I need to know if s.75 of CCA 1974 applies to this agreement considering the price.

What about the Misrepresentation Act.

He has the Finance Company to deal with at court not the motor dealer and we need to know the best way to amend the POC to include the price being raised.

 

Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the £4000 was used to pay the negitave equity on his previous car and not as a deposit on the new car.

 

How much was the negative equity??

 

He would have to have paid just over £15000 to vt the car according to the finance doc figures which would take 30 months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How has he justified the increase in advertised price from 22,995 to 25,668? It isn't unusual for the "list" price of the new car to be increased to absorb the negative equity of the old car rather than take a direct payment for the negative equity, but this salesman appears to have done both!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

He has already won a FOS judgement against the dealer. The FOS adjudicator concluded that the dealer "did not complete the finance proposal correctly which meant the deposit figure was not included in Mr #######'s finance agreement" The FOS also confusingly concluded that he suffered no financial loss as the total amount payable remained the same but surely this would only have been true had the agreement run full term. What prompted all of this was my mate wishing to terminate the agreement and him being told he couldn't without paying another 2 and a bit grand but if his 4 grand had have been on the agreement he would have been able to VT. All advice greatly recieved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

£38543 owed and given £31500 so 8k shortfall. Court case rests on agreement being unenforceable due to prescribed terms being incorrect (amount and frequency of repayments) and rights to VT being curtailed to the detriment of my pal.

Edited by steveoram1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So it looks like the extra money charged for the car £2673 and the £4000 cash was used to settle the outstanding finance.

If the shortfall was added to the amout financed he would have had to borrow an extra £6673 which would have raised the VT amount to 50% of £37266 (total amount for car) so 50% would be £18633, so he still would not have enough paid to VT.

So another £2500 to get out would be cheap.

 

Also he probably would not have got the finance through if presented like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...