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

VT with Motonovo/Carlyle Finance

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3953 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hey all, new to the forum so a big howdy to start with! HOWDY!


I purchased a car through Evans Halshaw in May 2011 and the Hire Purchase was with Carlyle at the time who subsequently was bought over by Motonovo.


I recently wrote to them advising them of my wish to voluntary terminate the contract using the following letter:


"I am writing to notify you that I am exercising my right to terminate the above Agreement under Section 99 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. You will understand that the aforementioned section permits the debtor to terminate the agreement at any time before the last payment is due. There is no restriction regarding the exercising this statutory right, particularly none in respect of any perceived arrears or monies due on termination


I we understand that I shall will be liable to you for the amount calculated under the formula in Section 100 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Please forward notice of any sums lawfully due for consideration and payment. From our telephone conversation this amount is £369.38 however can you advise if this takes into account September’s payment.


The above agreement will be terminated 14 days from the date of this notice.**


Please send me details of how the vehicle can be returned to you.


You will be aware that statute prevents you from levying a charge for the recovery of this vehicle; guidelines also state that if you require me to deliver this vehicle it must be no more than a short (reasonable distance) from my registered address.

Please confirm receipt of this request by telephone/email or in writing"


What I was unaware of was that they are trying to imply is the following:


1. Excess mileage charges, apparently I'm limited to 12000 miles per year (1000 per month) which i was not aware of when i procured the car.

2. The letter i received claimed that they would apply charges if the vehicle was not serviced in accordance with manufacturers reccomendations yet I can find no mention of this in the agreement letter which i had them sent out to me. What it states is that if i've paid more than or up to 50% and taken reasonable care of the vehicle then i can return it with nothing else to pay.


Am I right in thinking that the Consumer Credit Act overrules any of their said terms and conditions?


I.e. as there is no mention of mileage etc within this and provided i've taken reasonable care and paid more or up to 50% of the total amount then I can hand the vehicle back?


Thanks in advance.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response.


Is there any legislation within the CCA that states it overrules anything else do you know?


As far as reasonable wear and tear, theres a chip on two of the alloys and a scratch on the bonnet, apart from that it's immaculate.



Link to post
Share on other sites

then if you've paid +50% you owe nowt more!!!


watch moto they can be buggers

they'll try it on for sure


just read the other threads on here regarding them.



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

Would the mileage count under beyond reasonable wear and tear?


Trying to get a definitive answer to this. I've can't see how they could hold you to the mileage clause but will come back to you a little later with the final answer :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there. Not yet. My gut feeling is that they cannot expect you to pay anymore than the amount clained under the VT rule within the contract - e.g. the 50% amount lsted on the credit agreement.


Others may correct me though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...