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

Richard Durkin wins Supreme Court appeal – beware lenders!


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2655 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

Summary from Compass Chambers:

 

Durkin v DSG (Trading as PC World) and HFC Bank - Supreme Court Judgement 26/3/14

 

This case arose from an appeal from the First Division of the Inner House to the Supreme Court in which the appeal was successful on the Pursuer’s behalf. The Pursuer was represented by Andrew Smith QC and Richard Pugh, both of Compass Chambers. The Defender (HFC) was represented by Alastair Clark QC and Fintan McShane.

 

The facts have attracted a lot of publicity in the popular press, but turned on the whether when a consumer bought goods with credit, if the goods were validly returned to the supplier did the contract of credit also fall thus relieving the consumer from the obligation to make any further payments under the contract of credit?

 

The second issue for determination was what obligations there were on a creditor under such a contract to investigate the existence of the debt (which would fly off in the event that the principal argument was correct that the contract of credit fell simultaneously with the fall of the contract of supply of the goods) and whether a report could be made to a credit reference agency.

 

The Supreme Court held that once the contract of sale fell (for example because of the goods being faulty or not conform to contract) then the contract of credit automatically fell too, thus relieving the consumer from any obligation to make further payments under the contract of credit. Further, the court held that the creditor was under an obligation to investigate whether a debt existed prior to making any report to credit reference agencies. In the event of disputed debt, they must not make a report until the existence of the debt is adjudicated upon by a court if necessary, but whilst there is such dispute, they must make no report to the agencies.

 

This case will cause a major shift in the practices of creditors and debt collection agencies. Instead of using the threat to report bad debt to the agencies as a means of forcing payment from a consumer, the creditors are now prohibited from making a report until the debt is actually established. An example may assist.

 

A consumer purchases a computer and has credit provided for its purchase. It develops a fault and he takes it back to the shop. The shop refuses to accept it is faulty.

 

Usually the creditor would, if payments under the credit agreement are stopped by the consumer, threaten to report the consumer to a credit reference agency. This dramatic and effective threat would often result in the consumer paying for goods that were faulty.

 

In the light of the Durkin judgment, the creditor must investigate whether the debt is due – and that means investigating whether the goods were validly rejected by the consumer. If there is a dispute – other than a plainly ridiculous one – there can be no report unless and until the matter is determined by agreement of the parties or by court action. The court action envisaged by the Court is either an action for payment by the Creditor (where the Debtor can defend on the basis that the goods were validly rejected), or an action by the consumer (for example against the supplier for refund of sums already paid.

 

It is highly likely that there are many consumers who have been subjected to damage to their credit, or paid sums under threat that it now appears were not in fact validly extracted who now have claims for past losses.

 

The judgment is a major victory for consumers which restores power to the consumers which was intended when the 1974 Act was passed, but eroded by creditors using threats to extract sums without resorting to litigation.

 

Andrew Smith and Richard Pugh were asked to review the papers via the Free Legal Services Unit, and thereafter when accepting the instructions did so without charging any fee to Mr.Durkin. A copy of the judgement can be found here.

 

http://www.compasschambers.com/news/durkin_v_dsg_trading_as_pc_world_and_hfc_bank_supreme_court_judgement_26_314

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...