Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
      • 160 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
  • Recommended Topics

Motormile providing questionable documents


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3513 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

Given the dates you have here even if a DN was sent there was no time to rectify.

 

 

I would send them a suitably redacted screen shot of the entry, but I would also reiterate that you have never had an SL so the entry must be removed immediately and you require confirmation of their compliance with your instruction.

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

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The more I look at this issue of 'defaults' the more I realise it favours nobody, as it is 'incorrect' in 99% of the cases I've chased up on.

 

The whole debt buying 'industry', AND the CRA's are no longer fit for purpose and should all be disbanded as soon as possible.

 

As its been stated time and time again, lenders have their own criteria now and do not necessarily go to the CRAs for information - so why are they storing blatantly wrong information and refusing to remove it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no objection with sending them a screenshot, but lets look at it this way. They get paid to do this, I don't. I now have to take time out to get the screenshot, alter it, send it then spend hours arguing with them about it. I don't get the privilege of sending them a default charge for my time. Its just not fair. RE The CRAs they are a waste of time, but they will never get shut of them. Credit Expert is a waste of time too, it doesnt even show you a true reflection of your credit score..But that's a moan for another day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This makes me laugh. The chap who's emailing me from MMF has a signature on all his emails. Its gone from Compliance Team, Customer Relations and finally collector... Wonder if he's related to Mike

 

I have asked them why the default was incorrectly labeled. Apparently they know that this was the case, but without seeing the screenshot they are unable to explain why it was incorrectly labeled.

 

Iv requested they look at the original notice of default that would have been sent out to me when they placed the default on my file, instead of sending a screenshot. Lets see if they come up with the goods.

Edited by allen169
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fed up of this now. Sent them the heavily blanked out screenshot, and now their reply is this.

 

By law, the original lender is to supply you with a Notice of Default, not ourselves.

 

 

 

I shall send a request to the 3 credit reference agencies to update this to payday loan as opposed to student loan.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The default notice should be sent by the creditor, but it Must allow time for the default to be rectified.

with PDLs some have stated that a DN is not needed for such a short term loan.

I think "Mike" et al are one lonely little chap with a big ego, probably works in a cupboard under the stairs.

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...