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

buildings insurance and re-instate value


nav110
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4225 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 all,

 

I purchased a property in 2007 for £105000 which is now in negative equity. More recently properties of the same kind on the street have been sold averaging £80000. The lender had carried out 2 valuations over a period of six months when the original mortgage was taken out. The first valuation report hadthe reinstate value of £87000 and the second at £92500. Recently i been advised the lender is to renew the insurance policy and that sum insured would be £107000.

 

I opposed this figure and told the lender that their original reinstate valuation is wrong and was overvalued to reflect the house price market of the time and believe the reinstate value is approx £70000.

 

I received a letter from the lender stating they inputted the wrong reinstate value at the time of completion and a more upto date reinstate figure is £105000. I called and spoke to their agent who told me that the letter is wrong and no incorrect reinstate value was input on completion but the reinstate value had been indexed linked twice giving the incorrect figure of £107000 rather than £105000. The agent confirmed what was in the letter andwhat she told me was contradictory.

 

Now i have two issues which i need some helpful advice

 

(1) if a property has a sale value of £80000 is it a fair understanding for the reinstate value to be £105000.

 

Is the sale of the property reflective of the cost to rebuild the property?

 

Is the rebuild cost not a factor determining the cost of sale?

 

in other words are properties sold less than the actual cost of its building even when condition is good?

 

(2) The lenders agent was unable to give me further information on the indexed linked figure for me to determine the difference and any over charging on my account. As their is contradictory information but an agreement to some error on their behalf does that equate to a breach and what actions should/can i take?

 

anyone had any experience with their lender with regards to over valuation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have always found the rebuild value to always be considerably more than the sale value.

 

also it varies upon how the rebuild takes place

 

and what materials are used compared to the original construct materials

 

mines 30" stone [1700's build]

 

thats about £500k to do so my building ins reflects that

 

the value of the house on the market is about £300k

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...