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

Do you have charges going back more than 6 years?


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1896 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 Bankfodder,

 

I've just been flicking through this lengthy thread and you probably know this already or it may not be of any interest, but under data protection / data retention law once a financial agreement has closed, the lender can only hold records (in any media, hardcopy or softcopy, incl. backups) of the account for between 5 to 7 years (depending on the type of account). I only know this because my occupation is in doc management and one of our customers is a finance provider. So I think anyone who's account was closed pre-1999 would not be able to get copies of their statements anyway...

 

As I said, you probably know this already, but I thought I'd let you know. :)

 

Cheers

First Direct £625 - SETTLED :D

Jul 2006

Settled in full Jul 2006

 

Abbey #1&2 £2,692 & £871.46 interest - IN PROGRESS :(

S.A.R's - sent 27 Jul 2006

Statements recieved 10 Nov 2006 onwards (dribs and drabs)

Request for refund sent and refused Nov 2006 and Mar 2007

MCOL commenced 24 Apr 2007

Abbey acknowledged then submitted defence 22 May 2007

Being transferred to local court...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi bill-k,

 

No I don't mind at all. It's my understanding that they are not allowed to hold personal information about you after this time because they hold no interest and therefore no right or reason (i.e. you don't have any agreement with them). This is to regulate against organisations accumulating huge great databases of information about anyone who has ever come into contact with them. No-one has the right to hold personal info about you (dob, addresses, bank details) without your consent - that consent being given when you sign up for credit. So it's my interpretation that if they still have details of your transactions 7 years after the account was closed then they have broken data protection legislation and that should also be addressed.

 

Now I think I'm right on this, but if anyone wants to correct me please do.

 

HTH

Emma :)

  • Haha 1

First Direct £625 - SETTLED :D

Jul 2006

Settled in full Jul 2006

 

Abbey #1&2 £2,692 & £871.46 interest - IN PROGRESS :(

S.A.R's - sent 27 Jul 2006

Statements recieved 10 Nov 2006 onwards (dribs and drabs)

Request for refund sent and refused Nov 2006 and Mar 2007

MCOL commenced 24 Apr 2007

Abbey acknowledged then submitted defence 22 May 2007

Being transferred to local court...

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1896 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...