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 
        • 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

galbi18 v Toothfairy Finance/NDR/Marshall Hoare


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4700 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,

I'm in the same situation as kh41.could anybody advice how to write about Toothafairy complaint? they passed my files to Atkinson&Firth. I got exactly the same lette as kh41.

thank you.

Gabi

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello,

can anyone advice me please? i'm in the same situation as kb2011. i received a letter from Atkinson&Firth following the email from MH Bailiffs. i'm thinking to go the way as kb2011 did - but not sure who i suppose to write to: MH Bailliffs or Atkinson&Firth?

i took loan in december last year and i've been paying Toothafairy £28.56 through my dmp with one company (but from now on i will be doing my own dmp as i cancelled my contract with company because they charged me too much) - they have never accepted my offer although they have never refused payments.my loan was £300 + interest £54 (for 14 days - it was originally my loan as i took it for 14 days). but for 4 weeks contract says interest is £108.

which one should i take to make an offer to them?

any advice please?

thank you

 

Gabi

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you took the loan for 14 days it is the same as I keep telling people

 

Original loan amount plus one months interest, so you would be paying £108 in interest. However as they keep passing you around you now have grounds for a complaint to

 

http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk

http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk

 

and if you can get to your local CAB then do so, Marshall Hoares cannot use their Bailiff powers in collecting this debt so you report them too.... I don't know much about Atkinson & Firth, can you post more details on them? They cannot use bailiff powers either, they cannot contact your employer and ask for money to be taken from your wages. They also cannot come and take goods from any property connected with you up to 9 times the value of the debt.

 

Make a list now of every payment made by the DMP company to Toothfairy and then see what is left... based on the final total of £408.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is the letter i got from atkinson&firth:

"27/06/2011

Dear xxxxx

we act for MH Bailiffs (MHB) who act as agents for Toothfairy Finance Ltd.We understand that despite numerous attempts to obtain the payment the debt remains outstanding.The pre action protocol under the Civil Procedure Rules has now expired.We are accordingly instructed to advise you that our clients now intend to issue court proceedings to recover debt and the additional cost that have been incurred due to your failure to pay the debt promptly.Proceedings will be issued against you after 7 days without further notice unless the payment is made in full or you contact MHB an come to acceptable agreement.

The amount of the claim will be as follows:

outstanding amount 1083.44

court fee 45

solicitors fee 150

in red: OUR CLIENT HAS INDICATED THAT IF 600 IS RECEIVED IN CLEARED FUNDS BY 17:00 01.07.2011 PAID VIA THEIR WEBSITE THEY ARE PREPARED TO CLOSE THE FILE. THIS WILL NOT BE EXTENDED OR NEGOTIATED."

this is the letter from A&F.

what do you think? any advice please?

thanks.

Gabi18

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jog on, surely? Haven't they already applied "solicitors fees" when they passed it on to NDR? Two sets of solicitor fees?! One of which at least is definitely unsubstantiated?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

AF must know that they SHOULD negotiate a repayment schedule with you BEFORE going to court, if all they exisit for is to take you to court they SHOULD have a separate CCL licence for this activity, solicitors for rent days are numbered as the SRA (Solicitors Regulatory Authority) is now waking up to the fact that they are acting unprofessionally...

 

I think that email MUST go to the OFT and Trading Standards.

 

http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk

http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk

 

also try http://www.ripofftipoff.co.uk which is a Trading Standards offshoot looking at problem companies, which this one certainly is, they can't have all three companies adding fees ad infinitum and claiming it is legal for them to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange though. I sent them an offer yesterday for what i was paying through my dmp - they didnt accept it, but what is strange they actually replied via email.this is my email: "Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Acc/Ref No xxxxx

 

 

Thank you for your letter of 01−07−2011. We are very disappointed that we seem unable to reach a satisfactory compromise in this case.

 

As we have already explained, we can only afford £28.56 per month at the present time. This is the only realistic payment proposal.

 

You have stated in correspondence your intention to commence proceedings in the county court against us. The commencement of legal proceedings under such circumstances could be counter to the ‘Overriding Objectives’ of the new Civil Procedure Rules. You will be aware that the Overriding Objectives underpin everything the court does. Moreover, paragraph 4 of the Protocols Practice Direction states that in cases not covered by an approved pre−action protocol, the court will expect the parties “to act reasonably…….. In trying to avoid the necessity for the start of proceedings”.

 

We would suggest that your refusal to accept our offer could be viewed as unreasonable and we would ask the court to consider this matter with reference to the Overriding Objectives.

 

The offer of £28.56 is of course still open to you to accept.

 

Yours faithfully

Mrs xxxxxxxx"

and this is their answer:

"Dear xxxx,

 

Thank you for your email. Your offer of £28.56 per month has been rejected.

 

This is becuase of the nature of your loan. You borrowed £300 on 29.11.10 for 28 DAYS ONLY.

 

We are at a loss how you can offer us £28.56 per month and expect us to accept this.

 

Please state WITH EVIDENCE what has changed in your circumstances since you took out your loan.

 

Failure to come to an agreement with us will lead to ground recovery agents being dispatched to all addresses on file and proceedings will commence against you in your local county court.

 

Yours Faithfully

 

Jason Ash (43)

 

Door Collections

 

Marshall Hoares Bailiffs

 

Telephone: 0843 381 1111

 

The content of this email should not be considered as an acceptance of any offer unless we previously review and expressly approve in writing your terms and conditions relating to the subject matter of this email.

 

The information in this email is private and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient(s) or have otherwise received this email in error, please delete the email and inform the sender as soon as possible. This email may not be disclosed, used or copied by anyone other than the intended recipient(s). Any opinions, statements or comments contained in this email are not necessarily those of Marshall Hoares Bailiffs Limited. If you wish clarification of any matter, please request confirmation in writing.

 

Marshall Hoares Bailiffs Limited.

 

Registered Company No.: 6871092

 

Consumer Credit License: 631168

 

We take precautions to minimise the risk of this email containing a software virus but you should use virus checking software."

Link to post
Share on other sites

They use the phrase "we are at a loss" a lot. It's hard to explain but PEOPLES SITUATIONS CHANGE, GAHHHHHHHHHHHHH. As far as what has changed, that's none of their business unless the court states otherwise, but that would mean GOING TO COURT.

 

I wonder if the guy who sent that is the guy who called me? Seems very coincidental! Did he have his own email address or was it the generic [email protected]?

Link to post
Share on other sites

this shows when look at the details of that email:

"from Marshall Hoare - MH - Jason Ash [email protected] via email.toothfairyfinance.com

to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

date Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:02 PM

subject xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

mailed-by email.toothfairyfinance.com

signed-by email.toothfairyfinance.com"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...