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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3320 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

Hi ICY

 

Have you got copies of the documents? Have you sent them a SAR request?

 

Have you got a copy of the loan agreement?

 

Basically you are saying you didn't ask for it, they just added it onto the loan. In their response they are talking about 'cancelling the PPI' which doesn't address your complaint, it seems like a conveinent excuse. They are saying the PPI payments were deducted from your current account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ICY

 

Send them a SAR request, they have 40 days to respond, it will cost you £10. Once you get the documentation, tell us what it says on the loan agreement, etc.

 

Build you case to lodge a complaint with the FOS.

 

No we dont
Link to post
Share on other sites

The FOS should be next, get the SAR info, see what that throws up.

 

In response to the points they have sent, they have admitted that Flexi loan was taken out in Feb 06, they have also stated that the Flexi Loan account included the optional insurance, this was not explained at the time, the benefits were not explained, they claim that this information is in the policy document and product information pack, which we do not have, no assessment was made at the time as to whether this policy was suitable or not, or what procedures were in place from employer in the event of sickness etc, the employment contract covers full pay for the first 6 months, and after that SSP, if there had been a problem after this, family would have helped out to make sure things were paid until things got back to normal, HSBC believe that this wasn't sufficient cover, the employment position is a senior management role, and carried funding responsibilities for the organisation, which are always awarded a year ahead, so had there become a funding issue putting the organisation at risk or employment at risk my wife would have been the first person to know about it, and would have had a year to source alternative funding, or look for alternative employment, redundancy would not suddenly appear, this contract was in place at the time of agreeing the Flexi Loan, had the Protection Plan been explained along with its benefits etc then it would have been instantly apparent that this would be much use.

The letter I have states that sufficient cover was not in place and therefor the Loan Protection Plan was suitable, this insinuates that there was a mandatory requirement to have such cover in place, which as far as I can see is not the case.

 

They also use the defense that the premiums have appeared on the bank statement, throughout the period this has been in force, and while its true that there were regular monthly payments in place, they came out of a current account not the Flexi Loan account, its only when looking through the bank statement that figured out what "Loan Protection" on the statement was for, underneath this was a reference number, finally figured out that this was the sortcode and account number for the Flexi Loan, I have just discovered a copy of a SAR request that was sent in April 2013, I have received nothing from this SAR, and have only just remembered it was sent, unfortunately there isn't a recorded delivery receipt with this SAR request so wouldn't be able to prove they have received it

 

 

I am wondering if this is worth using the court route due to FOS delays, I will write a response to the letter, and include a copy of the SAR and see if they respond to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...