Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You typed it in? actually typed it all out? if so, maybe you took too long or something, like session timed out. Does the status show defence filed or no change?
    • Hi just typed all defence clicked next and it's deleted all. Any help
    • I forgot to say, there is one last possibility and that is that they will receive your letter of rejection and simply fold, accept the rejection and refund you. Don't wait too long for this. Seven days maximum – but in that seven days you could send your letter of claim anyway and when that you don't hear from them or when they start mucking around at least you are seven days closer to beginning the legal action – and they will know it (which is the important thing).
    • Okay that is excellent that you have an email between the garage and the warranty company confirming that there is a serious problem with the gearbox. That is very powerful evidence. I think the situation is this: you have sent them a letter of rejection but the reputation of big motoring world is that they won't take a lot of notice and they will try to prevaricate and maybe even blame you. Clearly you don't want the car any more and anyway it sounds as if the cost of repairs is going to be enormous. You don't know if the warranty company is going to step up to the mark but the whole thing is going to take a long time and I understand that you have lost confidence in big motoring world because of this event and also their reputation which you are now discovering on Facebook and on this forum and no doubt elsewhere. On the basis that you don't want the car any more and you want your money back, you need to hurry things along. I think the first thing is that you need to decide if you are prepared to bring a claim in the County Court. Even without the warranty money, the claim is worth more than £10,000. For actions less than £10,000, you bring a "small claim" and this means that even if you lose the case you won't be liable for the other side's costs. If you win the case then not only will you get your money plus interest but also you will recover all of the costs of the action. For actions more than £10,000, you go to something called the "fast track" and in the event that you lose the case, then you could be liable to reimburse the winner some of the costs. This means that in addition to not recovering your own money, you would lose your own court fees and also you would have to to bear the costs of the other side probably something less than £5000 – but as a rough guess. If you bring your court claim then your chances of success are almost 100%. Frankly if you brought a court claim then I can imagine that big motoring world will put their hands up and pay you out rather than face go to court and losing and getting a judgement against them. However, it you need to consider that this is a risk factor – although my view it is a negligible risk factor. If you did bring a court case, it wouldn't be instant. If they put their hands up then it would probably happen very quickly. If they didn't put their hands up then you could take anything up to a year for the matter to be resolved and during that time you would be without your car and without your money and in the middle of litigation. I'm explaining this to you say that you understand how it works. Bring a court case would be really the last resort when everything else has failed. However, I'm quite certain that you would win and it would be stupid of big motoring world to try to resist. In order to bring a court case you would have to send a letter of claim giving them 14 days to accept rejection and organise the refund otherwise you would begin the claim. Don't imagine that you could bluff this. If you did send a letter of claim then you would have to go through with it otherwise you lose all credibility and you might as well pack up and go home. So with this in mind, here are possible courses of action you could take. You can simply wait and see what their reaction to your letter of rejection will be. However they may not reply or else they may find some other reason to delay and of course during that time you will be without your car and without your money blah blah blah, not knowing if big motoring world were going eventually to start acting sensibly and respectfully towards you. The second thing you can do – and I think this has been suggested on Facebook – is that you can go along there and simply make yourself present and talk to other customers and generally speaking make a nuisance of yourself and embarrass them to the point where you would be explaining to other potential customers to be careful, to look on Facebook, and to do some careful research before they put their business to big motoring world. This has a reasonable chance of success although you would have to be careful. You should go accompanied by a friend and there should be no anger, no arguments, nothing that could be considered as being overly aggressive so that big motoring world would have no justification in kicking you out or even worse, calling the police. If you did this, then I would suggest that you record everything on the telephone carried in a pocket. A fully charged battery will probably keep a voice recorder and a telephone going for more than 20 hours or 30 hours. The other person can video any incidents so that everything is clear and you can inform big motoring world then it will be going up on the Internet. If you did this, my favourite option would be to issue the letter of claim giving them 14 days, and then going along to big motoring world with a copy of your letter of rejection and a copy of the exchange between the mechanic and the warranty company and a copy of your letter of claim – all settled together – and probably about 20 or 30 copies in all and I would start handing them out to any customers who came in. Big motoring world will soon get the picture and they will either move your the premises in which case you stand outside and carry on doing it or they will finally give in. Of course there is a chance that they won't give in and they will simply call your bluff – but in that case I think you have no choice other than to follow through with your 14 day threat in the letter of claim and to begin the legal action. At the same time you should be putting up reviews on Google and also trust pilot explaining exactly what has happened and also explaining that the mechanic has confirmed to the warranty company that there is the serious problem, that you have asserted the right to reject and that this is been ignored by big motoring world and that you have now sent a letter of claim and that you will be starting a legal action in 14 days. Once again, don't bluff about the legal action. If you threaten it – then you must mean it – and on day 15 you click of the claim. You don't need a solicitor for any of this. It's all fairly straightforward and of course we will help you all the way that it the decision is yours to make and I think you need to make it fairly quickly. I think the cost of starting an action for about £13,000 is 5% and then also if it goes to trial which I would say is almost impossible – there would be an additional fee. You would claim interest at 8%. A judge might award a lower figure but frankly if you can show that big motoring world is attempting to ride roughshod over your very clear statutory consumer rights, I can imagine that the judge will want to show displeasure by awarding the full 8% which is a pretty good rate – even though it's not compensation for the hassle and the distress you are going through. If you decide to get solicitor, then if you win the case, because it is over £10,000 you will recover some of your costs but you won't recover all of them. If the solicitor begins by having exchanges of letters then I doubt whether you will be up to recover the cost of those and you could easily find that you're chalking up 500 quid or even a thousand simply on initial exchanges of correspondence. Also you need to bear in mind that if after having exchanges with a solicitor, big motoring world cave in – then you definitely won't get those costs back because you won't have gone to court and therefore a judge will not have made the order for payment of those costs. I suggest very strongly that you avoid paying any money for a solicitor and that you do it yourself. It's not a big deal – although you will have to you react quickly to the help we offer on this forum. Also, an additional benefit is that you will learn a lot and you will gain confidence and eventually you will feel good about suing anybody else who gets in your way. Nothing not to like! If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must take control of the solicitor. Most of them prefer to sit in an office writing letters on the clock. If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must instruct the solicitor very firmly that they should send one letter of complaint giving seven days. A second letter – a letter of claim giving 14 days and that they must then begin the action. If you don't do this. If you don't take control then it will simply cost you money, you will be without your car even longer and of course without your money. The whole thing is a nightmare. I think I've laid out the options but please do ask questions. I hope you can see that this is the kind of advice that you won't be getting on Facebook. Nothing against Facebook. It's good as a meeting place and to make people realise that they aren't on their own – but after that the advice given is weak and confusing.  
    • What makes you say that?  I have no idea how I would go about that or why they would even entertain discussions now that they've won the Court case
  • 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

Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3758 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

I would guess that there are other issues we are not privy to which take additional consideration, just guessing. Or of course it could just be a procedural delay

 

Ben will know about the cases he should really tell us he as been a commercial property lawyer for 25 years at woodfine solicitors so he will most definitely be privy to the information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Ben will know about the cases he should really tell us he as been a commercial property lawyer for 25 years at woodfine solicitors so he will most definitely be privy to the information.

 

Lmao

 

You are a right one Enficer :-)

 

So who am I supposed to be today ?

 

logged off already ? lol

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for any reliance put upon the previous link to the Council of Mortgage Lenders -

 

http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/about

 

"The Council of Mortgage Lenders is a not-for-profit organisation and the trade association for the mortgage lending industry, and our members account for around 95% of UK residential mortgage lending."

 

And when this trade association asked its members about the mortgage deed -

 

http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/handbook/englandandwales/question-list/741

 

Question: 14.1.5. Does the lender need to be sent the original mortgage deed?

 

In the majority of cases the mortgage deed is never even sent back to the lender - if it is not sent back to them, they can't sign it as part of Apples fanciful ideas about delivery of a deed

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dodgeball, Why have the Property Chamber not struck out the 9 remaining (as per Ben's FOI) applications, if they have no merit? BP

 

My personal opinion and it is nothing more than speculation is that the decision of the property chamber in regard to the cases heard on 20 Jan will be applied to the remaining 7 applications and any future applications. The purpose of the hearings on 20 Jan is in my view to put a decision in place to apply to subsequent applications - as this is a topic that has not yet previously been determined by the Property Chamber

 

This is based upon what the Property Chamber has said (and as previously posted in this thread) to UNRAM and IS IT ME?

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: 14.1.5. Does the lender need to be sent the original mortgage deed?

 

In the majority of cases the mortgage deed is never even sent to the lender

 

May make it slightly awkward for him to sign in that case :)

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

check out http://www.192.com and see how many Ben Hall's come up lol

 

10/10 for effort but sadly 1/10 for results Enfircer -

 

So there can be no confusion, I do not work for woodfines and until you posted about them, I had not even heard of them, so a coincidence that someone else has the same first initial and surname as me - eh yes lol

Edited by ims21
.

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any other conspiracy theories you want to try ?

 

Enfircer if you spent more than 5 seconds looking at their website, that email address you posted (which has now been removed) belongs to a Brian and not a Ben

 

And for the record unlike Brian, I don't watch rugby :razz:

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet again I go out for a couple of hours and it takes me ages to catch up.

 

What is going on in this world. Oh and by the way, I am bad, I am very very bad but that's a whole different story

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben

Earlier you said 10 applications made, 1 thrown out and 2 to be heard on 20th. I assume that this case is 1 but what of the other. In your email reply it said that only 1 was heard on 20th so do I assume the other for whatever reason was not?

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal opinion and it is nothing more than speculation is that the decision of the property chamber in regard to the cases heard on 20 Jan will be applied to the remaining 7 applications and any future applications. The purpose of the hearings on 20 Jan is in my view to put a decision in place to apply to subsequent applications - as this is a topic that has not yet previously been determined by the Property Chamber

 

This is based upon what the Property Chamber has said (and as previously posted in this thread) to UNRAM and IS IT ME?

 

These are the posts I was referring too

 

 

the matters raised un this application have been raised in a NUMBER of other applications recently s108 applications made to the chamber. This is the first application( you have to ask why) and is the only one (so far ) a response has been made and filed, as well as an application to strike out by the respondents.

Of the other applications the tribunal would prefer to stay the applications with a view to disseminating a decision once there has ben a hearing, it is possible that a number of cases will be heard at the same time.

Then asks to lists dates to avoid, I will be able to go in January and asked for t 2 day listing.

 

and

 

I have received notice from the Property Chamber my application is going forward and I have been ORDERED to send a copy of the application and all supporting documentation to the lender. The lender is ORDERED to respond within one calendar month. I will scan the documents if there is some way of getting them to you.

 

They have indicated that there is going to be a group tribunal in London in November or December.

 

This is exact wording of the reply...

 

"The tribunal has received a number of similar applications which appear to be based on draft pleadings which are circulating on the internet. In the interests of efficient case management the Tribunal is in the process of identifying a number of cases to be heard at an oral hearing, with the intention of circulating a decisions for consideration in future applications, with a view to saving court time and the resources of litigants on both sides. The applicant should be aware that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief, provide an indemnity, or award damages or, on an application under s108(2) Land Registration Acts 2002, make an order for alteration of the register. The Tribunal anticipates that this application might be one of those applications listed to be heard, subject to any representations by either party. Any such representation should be filed and served by 5pm 7th November 2013."

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

One last question

To me it is not relevant as I do not subscribe to the more posts=more knowledge theory as such

 

Out of people individual posts what sort of % would you guess are made on this thread.

 

Apple, 80-90%?

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben

Earlier you said 10 applications made, 1 thrown out and 2 to be heard on 20th. I assume that this case is 1 but what of the other. In your email reply it said that only 1 was heard on 20th so do I assume the other for whatever reason was not?

 

Hello Fletch in the email it refers to two - The decision relates to both of the applications - It would appear by posts in this thread that one was Is It Me?'s friend and the other remains unidentified - I am not interested in anyone's identity, just the decision. Once I receive a copy of it, I will remove any names and any thing that can identify the applicant before, I post it to this thread

 

"The Mortgage dispute Decision is still outstanding with the Judge, so I would advise you to keep checking back with this office after xxx 2014 when a Decision is more likely to have be issued. For your information the mortgage application Case numbers are REC/2013/00xx & 00xx."

 

Two case reference numbers are quoted - I have just edited them with xx

 

I have added a space to the above which was not present in the original email to more clearly show the &

 

 

The tally based upon information received and information posted in this thread is

 

Out of the 10 applications made

 

1 application struck out

2 applications heard

7 applications stayed until an outcome is issued

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

One last question

To me it is not relevant as I do not subscribe to the more posts=more knowledge theory as such

 

Out of people individual posts what sort of % would you guess are made on this thread.

 

Apple, 80-90%?

 

Be fair, I must have made at least 40% - give me some credit lol

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ben

I wasn't trying to be clever , I just misread and thought there was only one case heard on the 20th so assumed the other had been struck out as well or stayed .

 

Now i see my error.

 

As you say , identities really do not matter, if the person decides to out themselves so be it as Ms Mayhew has on several occasions (santander v mayhew).

 

The judgements are what matters

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ben

I wasn't trying to be clever , I just misread and thought there was only one case heard on the 20th so assumed the other had been struck out as well or stayed .

 

I know you wasn't, I am grateful for what you said, as others may have been thinking the same. After you said that I had to double read it, just to make sure lol

 

The confusion was my fault. I posted the email as it was received (minus the date and reference numbers). I should have amended it, to make it clearer

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's happened to your thread Ben?

You're not so interested in it are you

 

lol

 

most of it has been copied here :-)

 

I am very interested in "void mortgage deeds arguments" have you not noticed ? :roll:

 

(sorry for not responding earlier, I didn't see your post)

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if I posted this before but as it is related to the thread, I will post it, just in case

 

 

Halsbury's Laws of England/DEEDS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS (VOLUME 13 (2007 REISSUE))/1. DEEDS/(4) EFFECT OF A DEED/64. Accepting benefit without execution.

 

64. Accepting benefit without execution.

 

Where a person named in some deed, whether as a party to it or not, has, without executing the deed, ac-cepted some benefit thereby assured to him, he is obliged to give effect to all the conditions on which the benefit was therein expressed to be conferred; and he must, therefore, perform or observe all covenants or stipulations on his part which are contained in the deed, and on the performance or observance of which the benefit conferred was meant to be conditional1. For example, a mortgagee who has made a loan on mortgage, but has not executed the mortgage deed (which has been executed by the mortgagor only), is bound to give effect to a proviso contained in the deed for reduction of the rate of interest on punctual payment, or for allowing the loan to remain on the mortgage for a certain term2. If a person enters into land under an assurance made to him by deed (which he has not executed) for a term of years, for his life or in tail, and it subsequently appears that the grantor who made the assurance had no rightful title to the land, the person who has so entered is estopped from asserting, against the remainderman under the deed, a possessory title to the land as derived from his own wrongful entry and the effect of the Limitation Act 19803, even though he may be able to set up such a title against the original rightful owner4. Where a company takes the benefit of an apprenticeship agreement which it has not executed, it will be taken to have adopted it and will be bound by it5.

 

 

1 YB 38 Edw 3, 8a; YB 45 Edw 3, 11, (pl 7); YB 8 Edw 4, 8b; Littleton's Tenures s 374; Bro Abr, Dette (38, 80), Obligation (13, 14, 27); 1 Dyer 13b, pl 65; Co Litt 230b and n (1); Brett v Cumberland (1619) 2 Roll Rep 63; R v Houghton-le-Spring (1819) 2 B & Ald 375; Webb v Spicer (1849) 13 QB 886 at 893 (on appeal sub nom Salmon v Webb and Franklin (1852) 3 HL Cas 510); Linwood v Squire (1850) 5 Exch 234 at 236; Macdonald v Law Union Insurance Co (1874) LR 9 QB 328 at 330 and 332; Aspden v Seddon (1876) 1 Ex D 496 at 503, CA; Westhoughton UDC v Wigan Coal and Iron Co Ltd [1919] 1 Ch 159 at 174, CA; Halsall v Brizell [1957] Ch 169, [1957] 1 All ER 371. Before 1926, a grantee of land, subject to the reservation of an easement thereover, was bound, if he accepted the grant, to give effect to the reservation, though he did not execute the conveyance (May v Belleville [1905] 2 Ch 605); but now the reservation operates to create the legal estate reserved without execution of the conveyance by the grantee (see the Law of Property Act 1925 s 65(1); and PARA 239 post).

 

2 See note 1 supra; and Morgan v Pike (1854) 14 CB 473 at 483-486.

 

3 See the Limitation Act 1980 ss 15, 17 (as amended), Sch 1 (as amended); and LIMITATION PERIODS.

 

4 Dalton v Fitzgerald [1897] 2 Ch 86, CA; cf the Limitation Act 1980 Sch 1 (as amended) (see LIMITATION PERIODS); and see Littleton's Tenures s 374.

 

5 McDonald v John Twiname Ltd [1953] 2 QB 304, [1953] 2 All ER 589, CA.

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a quiet afternoon, makes a nice change from recent exchanges in this thread. - the site team especially must be enjoying the rest

 

It is probably for the best too, whilst everyone waits for the Property Chamber to issue it's written decision

 

For those interested in keeping an eye out for the decision, it should be available online not long after it is issued

 

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/tribunal-decisions

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really get bothered by anything matey ;)

 

 

That's the spirit Sequenci; It would be nice if others would take your lead ; )

 

Hopefully if they do; we can then get on with the serious issue that is the subject matter of the OP's thread.

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3758 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...