Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Endeavour


tra2026
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6330 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

After a bit off advice I decided to make a claim against Endeavour.

 

I sent the prem letter to Endeavour and had this reply

 

Thank you for your letter dated 28th Sept 2006, which I read with interest

 

The loan agreement you signed clearly states the terms for settling your agreement early.

 

You refer to ‘unfair terms in consumer contract regulations’ which clearly state a term is only unfair if ‘contrary to requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract, to detriment of the consumers’ and in addition a standard term must be expressed in plain and intelligible language

 

This condition does not breach this test.

 

Your contract was regulated under the consumer credit act 1974. The terms of your settlement would have been calculated according to the calculation in the act known as rule of 78. The interest you have been charged complies with the rule of 78, which is clearly defined under statute and further indicates no ‘unfair term’ exists

 

You mention fees of £272 that have been levied to your account. These fees are clearly identified on our tariff card and provided on completion of your loan. The OFT has clearly identified late payment fees on credit cards as unfair and set a maximum of £12 but are still investigating other charges levied by banks and financial institutions. Obviously the facility provided to you doesn’t fall under the definition and furthermore the OFT comment was not retrospective.

 

I respectfully suggest you take your own independent legal opinion before progressing further with your claim.

 

It is important that your issues are fully addressed. Therefore, if you have any further queries relating to this matter, or remain dissatisfied, please do not hesitate to contact m and I will arrange for your complaint to be escalated. Alternatively, you may follow the steps detailed on our internal complaint procedure.

Signed by a Terry Grainger.

 

So I then sent the LBA letter 14 days later and received back 2 days later a copy of the first letter asking me to refer to the first letter.

 

This has frightened me a little as there is no mention of defending in court or anything like that, Its the first part that I am trying to claim that’s worrying me the most, on the statements it said it was a penalty charge for paying up early and I was told to claim this back now I’m not so sure

 

Any help would be great as I not sure whether to carry on with the claim or not

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a very similar letter to what northern rock send out. It's done it's job too as its got you rattled. Press on with your timetable, they are just trying to scare you off. The rubbish they come up with is laudable. It matters not a jot about who the OFT aimed its report, it's down to simple contract law; they are not allowed to profit from a breach of contract. The onus will be on them to prove that it cost them that amount to deal with your breaches. Its as simple as that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Any news on this as I am considering making a claim against endeavour after they ended up nearly taking my house!!!! Although the loan has now been repayed I feel like meting out a little justice of my own!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too made a claim against Endeavour - sent out LBA - received letter from their solicitors Messrs Lightfoots stating they would defend the claim - am just waiting for the money to take them through MCOL - will keep you informed of how I get on -I think they think they can intimidate me with their war of words etc - they don't and I am willing to go all the way to Court with this - the amount involved is nearly £2,000.00 and I want it back - will let you know how I get on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...