Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello, firstly thank you for reading this. I know no one wants a long winded back story. So I’ll be breif. I entered a local store to buy some paint (which I did pay for) I am honestly not a bad person or a theif.   Didn’t have a basket or trolly as was on my lunch break. Whilst picking up the three tubs of paint placed some masking tape in my pocket (it was hanging out of so I had every intention to pay) just didn’t have a hand free. Paid for my goods (forgot about the £4.39 masking tape) I’ve got so much going on and im not well at all (like I say no one cares I get that) also have autism so wasn’t thinking particularly like others do maybe (who knows my minds going around and around) I left the store after paying, was pulled back in by security. Asked for the tape which I gave immediately  shook up. Gave them my ID and details. I was given some paper and told to expect a large fine in the post for their time and the tape and sent on my way. my questions are: I hardly ever go out without support so the ban I guess I can’t go there now for anything (their loss) - ok but is my photo going to be all over with my name? how much am I expecting in the post as a fine? I have sent them cash in the post recorded signed for delivery to arrive tomorrow (incident happened today) for my error. Their Address was on the bit of paper. i have read two posts on this page but they were from many many years ago so I hoped for updated advise please? 
    • V important you read lots of BMW threads too !  
    • So should I send them a new SAR and put my date of birth on it? Or do I need to send them some proof? Driving license? 
    • Thanks so much for your help!! I've emailed them, and when they reply saying they can't do it I'll reply and state my rights. I'm so glad I found this forum, and will read all of the posts I can find and help guides available for the future. Really can't thank you enough.
    • utter BS, doesn't matter you signed it. pers i'd be writing as per the other threads here rejecting the car as not as described under CRA etc and be done with it. as its a debit card you could also do a full chargeback within 120 days to your bank and simply dump the car back to BMW. 100's of like threads to read here. get your ducks inline. make sure you know what you are doing and off you go. dont take any BS from BMW, no matter what you sign it does NOT remove your consumer rights. p'haps it might be on the off chance you are a good manager , a quick phonecall tomorrow saying you dont want it because (no bla bla fitted) it might be resolved in 5 mins..i will guess to date you not tried
  • 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

Forthright finance creditcare PPI advice please


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4197 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

Hi Dx100uk

Thanks for help ,does this mean BOS are responsible for the ppi ,i had a response from Direct car in the form of a one sentence letter.(we are not the respondents in this case.)

Should i just ask BOS to reconsider their decision as i feel they have note acted with due regard to section 56 of the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

no demand

 

copy in the sec 56 info

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

YES!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think

 

For the attention of…………..

Thank you for your letter dated 23/5/2012 the content of which is noted.

You have stated that you are not responsible for any concerns that I may have with mis-selling of the policy, however, may I draw your attention to Section 56 of the CCA below for ease of reference

CCA section 56.

— (1) In this Act “antecedent negotiations ” means any negotiations with the debtor or hirer—

(a) conducted by the creditor or owner in relation to the making of any regulated agreement, or

(b) conducted by a credit-broker in relation to goods sold or proposed to be sold by the credit-broker to the creditor before forming the subject-matter of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(a), or

© conducted by the supplier in relation to a transaction financed or proposed to be financed by a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement and “negotiator ” means the person by whom negotiations are so conducted with the debtor or hirer.

I await a more favourable response , if however you continue to state that you are not responsible then please provide evidence as to why the agreement is not bound by Section 56 of the act,

regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Need some advice i think this is a lost cause.

So to update on my PPI claim

 

Forthright finance owned by BOS claim they did not sell the PPI it was the Car Garage who sold me the policy's so it was not their problem and i should submit my claim to DCF where i bought the car,

Wrote to ACF whom now own the garage where direct car finance traded from and they say DCF went into receivership and they bought the name from the receivers " Price water-house and cooper" and are not responsible for the miss selling of the policy as they did not own the company at time of sale .What does anyone think do i give up on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so we know S56 applies then.

 

(Note to self - read the thread first)

 

So have you approached BoS with the S56 stuff? I see it has been mentioned before but not sure whether you have approached them with it?

 

If you go to fos they may not take any notice of S56 because recently they seem to be making things up as they go.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Yes i sent them the letter as above but they just seemed to ignore it .I phoned their complaints department and they informed me as far as they are concerned they are not responsible and have closed the file, And their last letter informing me to take it up with the Car garage is their Full and final response

Link to post
Share on other sites

then you need to specifically ask them WHY

 

they think they are NOT coverd by sec 56 of the act that they signed.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

FAO a named person

 

Dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...

Had another letter from BOS but they are sticking with they didn't sell the policy,i have approached the FOS and they suggested i pursue the underwriters of the PPI (st Andrews Insurance in this case) FOS have suggested to me that the case is a 50/50 due to time but i have put the claim with them. so i don't expect to here anything positive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...