Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
  • 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
      • 160 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

Section 75 claim - debt sold by MBNA to DLC


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4243 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

Firstly - I'm a newbie here - so apologies if I ask the same as others have !!!

 

I had a credit card with MBNA for around 15 years before I used the card to purchase a car (cost approx £9k) in March 2011.

 

The transaction was made by myself with the car dealer that advertised it,

I called the dealer and read out my card details over the telephone for the car that I had seen a description of on the internet.

 

The car dealer delivered the car and upon arrival it was clearly not as described in a number of ways (some damage and no full MoT to mention a couple)

and this is clearly provable against the internet description where it stated full MoT and no mention of any damage.

 

The supplying car dealer was clearly in the business of selling cars as he had about 6 other cars advertised for sale at the time

and I've kept copies of all these descriptions in case they are required later.

 

So under distance selling regulations,

I complained to the supplying car dealer and asked for a refund,

made the car available for them to collect but they refused to accept the car back and refused to collect the car.

 

I immediately made a section 75 claim to MBNA.

 

MBNA stated the disputed amount would be put on hold until the matter was resolved.

Sensing there was going to be a fight I cancelled the direct debit so that the disputed amount would be "on hold" with MBNA

and not with myself and wrote to MBNA telling them that was my course of action

and supplied copies of all information receipts/descriptions/correspondence with the car dealer.

 

Eventually MBNA refused the section 75 claim, for a couple of spurious reasons.

 

One was broken debtor-creditor relationship

- MBNA claimed the car dealer was selling the car on behalf of the previous owner !!

clearly MBNA don't seem to understand how car dealers sell cars and this one was an obviously blatant attempt by the car dealer to attempt to avoid responsibility.

 

The other was that MBNA claimed that I knew about the damage prior to delivery and that I should have checked the car before purchasing.

I demonstrated to them that I relied upon the description and could not have been expected to travel from Oxford to Scotland to check the car over before deciding to purchase.

 

It was clear to me that I had provided sufficient information and evidence to support my section 75 claim,

and I repeatedly insisted that MBNA honour their obligations under section 75.

 

However, they refused and set on a course of pursuing me for what they claimed was an outstanding balance and what I repeatedly claimed was the disputed "on hold" amount.

 

I wrote to them on several occasions suggesting that we should put the matter in front of a judge to decide.

 

Eventually they went through the process sent me lots of demanding letters and default notices which I always replied to

and politely reminded them that the outstanding balance is subject to a Section 75 claim

and that if they felt strongly about it then I would be happy to talk it all over in front of a judge.

 

MBNA's last letter they stated that they would be selling the debt.

I immediately wrote back to MBNA and informed them that they do not have my permission to give or sell any of my personal data to anyone.

 

At this point I made a claim through the financial ombudsman, which is currently in progress.

 

In the meantime,

MBNA have sold the debt to DLC who appear oblivious to the section 75 claim and are now harrassing me with letters and phone calls.

 

I have written to DLC telling them to stop harrassing me and referred them back to MBNA,

stating that it appears that they have obtained my personal data in contravention of the data protection act.

 

Clearly there are several strands to this situation, I feel strongly that this is a valid section 75 claim,

but it seems that MBNA have simply avoided justice and I have been left with a blemished credit history.

 

My first concern is that the claim via the financial ombudsman may be too late.

 

My second concern is that having not paid the balance when I left the "on hold" balance with MBNA may have undermined the claim to some extent.

 

Comments, the experience of others in similar situations and all advice is appreciated.

 

(I will add/update as and when I get updates)

 

thanks !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another story that proves the banks are one of the most dishonest companies in existance.

 

Welcome to the forum Nigel.

 

You should start pushing the Ombudsman for some action, email and recorded mail both, don't let them sit on it until they decide their coffee has gone cold so might as well do some work.

 

Have you been sent the paperwork that shows the dca has either been assigned or purchased the disputed amount?

 

You can get an explanation added to your credit record if you think there will be enquiries on it.

 

If you want your day in court, you can issue under the DSR against the dealer direct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - I will be pushing the ombudsman - they initially said expect 8 weeks for MBNA to respond to their complaint - so will do this towards end August.

DLC have not provided me with any copies of paperwork/contracts/agreements to support their claim, I'm confident that MBNA have passed the account to them, otherwise how would they know ?! I've written to them requesting they provide copies of any agreement or documentation to support their claims and stop harassing me in the meantime, and co-incidentally the 3 per day calls from them have now stopped.

Spending time going through courts with a Distance Selling claim against the car dealer did seem like the path of most resistance compared with a Section 75 claim against a credit card company - however MBNA have turned out to be particularly unhelpful with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...