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

lowell letter gratten catalogue debt


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3596 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

Personally I would advise checking credit reference files for this debt before sending any letters at all.

How exactly have Lowell change the rules re the CCA request, this could be very important!!

  • Confused 1

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok if this has happened e.g. Lowell has quoted 40 days for a CCA request I suggest the following letter, this is entirely a complaint about the CCA request do not mention the alleged debt.

 

 

Private & Confidential

Ms Sara de Tute

Director of Legal & Compliance

The Lowell Group

Enterprise House

1 Apex View

Leeds

LS11 9BH

 

 

Date.....

Ref: use the one on their letters re CCA.

 

 

Dear Ms de Tute,

 

 

Formal Complaint/cc. OFT/FCA

 

 

I refer you to my lawful request for information made under sections 77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) dated xxxxx.

 

 

 

 

Lowell's response stating that it will comply within 40 days is as you must be well aware totally wrong the provisions laid down in CCA 1974 allows 12 + 2 working days for compliance with the request.

Perhaps staff dealing with such matters as CCA request under CCA'74 and Subject Access Requests under DPA 1998 should be better trained on the provisions of the Acts.

 

 

The account to which this request is formally disputed

 

 

I require Lowell to comply with my lawful request within the statutory time limit all else is unacceptable.

 

 

Take note no part of this communication is a admission of liability to the Lowell group.

 

 

Recorded/signed for post. check receipt

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lowell have a tendency to issue SDs as a means of intimidating debtors when they have no intention of following up on the BR process.

 

 

They are usually pretty quick to issue if they have enough data to try it on.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should Lowell attempt to issue a statutory demand in this case it would be irrefutable proof that they do so

purely as a method of intimidation with no prospect or intention of continuing the process to conclusion.

 

 

This would of considerable discomfort to Ms de Tute et al I think.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brig... I think they still do issue them out even when people aren't homeowners

 

 

Yes they do issue even when they are aware there are no assets that are realisable in BR.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...