Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes I understand that, my point is why is the account still be reported on 6 years after the default date has passed regardless of the SB date.   The default expired 4th November, Cabot put a query on the account the 7th November so it is still showing in my history, my question is why are they doing it?        
    • You will have to go to court to get an order  and once that is doen then you both have to abide by it. The actual form filling is not complicated and the first court session doesnt actually make any decisions and you will be advised to reach an agreement that can then be set in stone by the court.   the father has a right to "contact", but this is not the same as having the right to demand a particular set of visits, stopovers etc so decide what you want, and how this is practical and then ask that the contact be limited to this. for example if you work your contact will all be gettinmg them up, feeding them, putting them to bed and have no fun time at weekends if has has them then. The courts will do what is in the best interests ogf the child so you need to stop being jealous of their love for their father and dont try and use the system to punish him or the children. If he was abusive or controlling them read up on the serious crimes  act  2015 about controlling and coercive behaviour and see how amny fo the examples fit his behaviour and use that to get the courts to set lterms that  limit that behaviour instead of using the children as the tools.
    • Does anyone know if a person has the right  to use a lay representative in the family division of the county court? the wording of the Lay representatives(right of audience) order 1999 refers to a county court and stage 1 or tier 1 proceedings and Scots law have a form to fill out for such representation but it isnt clear whether the english system has such a clearly defined right of audience. The MoJ mentions it in some discussion papers as though it is hard and fast but in other documents  it is McKenzie Friends who are written about as if they are the only people allowed other than sols/barristers.   reason why lay rep needed is they can speak and the other side cant object where with McKenzie friend they cant speak on behalf of claimant/respondent and the other party can object to that person being present- which will happen  in this particular case. Ultimately it may well be a discretionary power of the judge but dont want to start off with a bad step.
    • It seems as though the solicitoras want to keep hold of this payday and will do anything to churn it ( make money by continuing an action that isnt in the clients interests).   The land registry will have the record of who paid for the property and how so you will be in the clear on that as you didnt just take the place over, you bought it from the estate of the deceased.   now it seems like your mother is struck by regrets/remorse over her inability to take over the property at the time and what tends to happen is that relatives will sit there and say bad things about the person who they see is the beneficiary of their misfortune and then get into a feedback loop, each reinforcing the wrong opinion of the other.   Your attempts to sort things out logically ahs tempered this somewhat so do continue and keep clear of their  lawyers at all costs, they will just keep the meter ticking over and bring the negative thought back to the surface.   your parents will already be about 2 grand a day down on anything the sols have done so try and get them to  look back to the mess that her father's death left them in and amke it clear that at least the house is still in the family and that she has benefitted from that by receiving money at the time that otherwise she wouldnt have got.   If that still causes friction then I would still write to them rather than responding to the solicitor, the lesson they will learn will cost them less and when the sols have moved on to the next client they will have not lost so much of what they still have left.   Ultimately if they do actually issue proceedings you can ask for the claim to be chucked out as having no merit etc by showing how the place was bought. I do struggle to believe that people dont know who their mortgage was with even after all of this time,  same as I find it odd that people suddenly find details for accounts with tens of thousands in that they had forgotten about. You can find out as again it will be in the Land registry entry for most properties that had a mortgage
    • A claim was issued against you on 30/07/2019 Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 31/07/2019 at 18:14:49 Your acknowledgment of service was received on 01/08/2019 at 08:05:52 Your defence was submitted on 30/08/2019 at 23:17:46 Your defence was received on 02/09/2019 at 01:06:05 DQ sent to you on 27/09/2019 DQ filed by claimant on 27/09/2019 You filed a DQ on 23/10/2019 Your claim was transferred to BIRMINGHAM on 14/11/2019
  • Our picks

poor-boy

Motor Trader Issues on vehicle functions. Small Court Claim now issued ** Full Refund Given **

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1586 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

More reason than ever to get a letter before action off to them.

 

Would there be a way to word the letter or determine how they would be responsible? As they state the Visa Debit chargeback is not law and only a scheme put together by the banks etc..

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not put together by the banks pg, it was put together by Visa. NO it isn't law like credit cards. You could drop a complaints email to Visa big boss hussn@visa.com and see if he responds.

 

 

I would say that you know they are not bound by law but you have given them all the evidence required to reject the car and get a full refund. To date, the dealer has refused.

 

 

Have you contacted Trading Standards ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not put together by the banks pg, it was put together by Visa. NO it isn't law like credit cards. You could drop a complaints email to Visa big boss hussn@visa.com and see if he responds.

 

 

I would say that you know they are not bound by law but you have given them all the evidence required to reject the car and get a full refund. To date, the dealer has refused.

 

 

Have you contacted Trading Standards ?

 

I will send an email to Visa's big boss and ask why put a scheme together and then let the banks decide after sending them all the evidence that there is nothing they can do - why waste my time and resources.

 

Trading standards have been contacted via Consumer Rights and are always forwarded on the copies of letters including copies of the signed for evidence from Royal Mail.

 

I am going to be writing to the bank again and advising them that after the letter of action the retailer decided to write me an email but is refusing to accept the vehicle or put right the faults stated in the engineers report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Poor Boy

 

When you write to the bank again, in your letter state that they are in breach of BCOBS, they shouldn't treat you 'unfairly'.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?826-How-Can-BCOB-Protect-You-From-Your-Bank-s-Unfair-Treatmen

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?849-BCOBS-Round-up-Making-your-bank-treat-you-failry

 

 

I will send an email to Visa's big boss and ask why put a scheme together and then let the banks decide after sending them all the evidence that there is nothing they can do - why waste my time and resources.

 

Trading standards have been contacted via Consumer Rights and are always forwarded on the copies of letters including copies of the signed for evidence from Royal Mail.

 

I am going to be writing to the bank again and advising them that after the letter of action the retailer decided to write me an email but is refusing to accept the vehicle or put right the faults stated in the engineers report.


Welcome to Consumer Action Group

 

'Challenges are what makes life interesting; overcoming them is what makes life meaningful.'

Joshua J. Marine

 

1) CLAIM BACK ALL PENALTY CHARGES CLICK HERE

2) CLAIM BACK ALL MIS-SOLD PPI CLICK HERE

3) COMPOUNDED CONTRACTUAL INTEREST CLICK HERE

4) REQUEST CCA FROM CREDITOR CLICK HERE

5) OFT- UNENFORCEABLE AGREEMENTS CLICK HERE

6) CAREY V HSBC (2009) CLICK HERE

7) DON'T BE BULLIED BY CREDITORS / DCA's CLICK HERE

8) IN DEBT DON'T PANIC CLICK HERE

9) FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT CLICK HERE

10) SALE OF GOODS ACT-EDUCATE YOUR RETAILER CLICK HERE

11) DISTANCE SELLING-EDUCATE YOR RETAILERCLICK HERE

12) SOGA SUMMARY CLICK HERE

13) WHICH? TEMPLATES [/url]CLICK HERE

14) DOES YOU BANK TREAT YOU FAIRLY BCOBSCLICK HERE

15) EVERYTHING HOUSING CLICK HERE

16) UTILITY BACKBILLING CLICK HERE

17) OFGEM - COMPLAINTSCLICK HERE

18) OFCOM - COMPLAINTS CLICK HERE

DON'T GIVE UP, THIS SITE WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH GUIDANCE AND EMPOWERMENT

 

Don't forget to donate to this site

 

Please let us know how your problem has been resolved, it could help fellow Caggers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly what I would expect of a review about a secondhand car sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the email they sent me, I have since sent a forth letter putting the company to strict proof regarding the alleged "fair wear and tear" and a copy of the bill of sale with the alleged faults.

 

If you read the email (above in blue) they state there were no faults but then state they advised me of the faults.. Confused!!

 

I am pressing forward with court action and let the courts decide if I have 'unrealistic expectations'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right - Have spoken to the bank and as the trader wrote "sold as seen" on the invoice the bank can not do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the fact they advertised it as having Sat nav and being 170bhp should mean something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bank state 'NO' - They state that as the invoice stated "sold as seen" they can not do anything about it even if the advert stated 170BHP and the vehicle is manufactured as 140BHP.

 

They want me to send them a rolling road report to prove the BHP although they have been advised the vehicle has no power to even drive under its own steam on the public road due to turbo failure.

 

Oh and as it is a used vehicle they can not take the matter any further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a criminal offence for a business to make an attempt to limit a consumers statutory rights. One way of limiting a consumers rights is to write, "sold as seen" on a bill of sale. There is no such thing between a business and a consumer.

 

 

The bank staff have no idea or they are fobbing you off. They have no right to say this, it is not just misleading, but lies.

 

 

Your next move has to be court.

 

 

Who is your bank ??

Edited by Conniff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bank is HSBC and the vehicle traders bank is also HSBC, I have logged a complaint with the bank too as they do not understand the consumer protection regulations 2008 but instead advised they follow the Visa regulations and I am not allowed a copy of this.

 

I am taking this to court without doubt as it has now gone on long enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not drop an email to the top - stuart.t.gulliver@hsbc.com - explaining and see what he has to say.

 

 

I wouldn't make it too long an email or he might not read it, you know what these people are like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, drop a line to Visa. hussn@visa.com saying your bank refuses to show you a copy of Visa terms and conditions of operation. You can also mention that HSBC are refusing to do a chargeback even though you have shown them proof this was an unlawful transaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conniff - cheers buddy, I have also forwarded my communication log of emails / calls to hussn@visa.com in the hope that someone contacts me so fingers crossed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an update - The PA of Visa CEO has contacted me and is looking into the banks tactics to avoid / fob me off.

 

To save beating round the bush with the non cooperative seller claiming all the faults are wear and tear (yes even the BHP although the car was manufactured as 140BHP and not the 170BHP they claimed) - I have issued court papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, no point in waiting.

 

 

Expect some messing ie no response / set aside and all that crap from them as motor sellers seem to be schooled in frustrating and dragging out court claims as long as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they might too and I have stated in the court papers that the seller has failed to communicate in a timely manner or any if so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right.. The bank have written me a letter advising that the faults are due to age and general usage and the independent report relates to wear and tear issues that would be present in a used car from 2007.

 

I am going to write back to them putting them under strict proof to provide evidence on their decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't understand their reluctance as it's not the bank that will be paying out anything, they will reclaim it from the dealer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right all, Sorry I have been busy with other things but at the same time have still been chasing this up and questioning the bank.

 

Attached is a letter from the bank stating they can not do anything as the car was "sold as seen" and I had the opportunity to test drive the car, the bank have also stated the make / model are correct and the independent report from the garage relates to "wear and tear" and not faults.

 

See here - http://s1120.photobucket.com/user/poor-boy/media/HSBCLetter08012015.jpg.html

 

I have decided to reply and put the bank to "strict proof" and to provide evidence of their alleged findings. (my letter is in blue writing)

 

 

Dear Vina Patel

 

I write in reference to the letter concerning my dealings with CENTRAL MOTOR COMPANY.

I disagree with your decision and statement made advising “Under the visa rules and regulations” as your response is fictional with no evidence or facts provided to back up the statement.

 

I am going to respond in stages and will be putting you to strict proof to provide evidence on the aforementioned regarding your assessment to my claim, the response from yourself seems to be based on opinion / fictional and not facts. Currently HSBC are attempting to violate my consumer rights under the Banking Code of practises (the practises are available internally to you)

 

1) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence of the visa rules and regulations particular to my claim that you have referred to.

 

2) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence of the terminology “Seen” as stated in your letter.

3) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence that the mentioned faults were not “laying” and were not covered up by CENTRAL MOTOR COMPANY. (Defective)

4) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence that the vehicle was advertised “true” and in accordance with its make/model/ variants and all defects were stated in the advert including the correct Brake Horse Power the vehicle was manufactured with. (The vehicle was manufactured as 140BHP and not the 170BHP Central Motor Company advertised as *Mis-advertised*)

5) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence that the independent report provided relates to “wear and tear issues” and not mandatory defects i.e there was no human intervention to remove internals of the DPF that is required by law. (The independent report states “faults” and not “general wear and tear”) (Defective)

 

6) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence of your mechanical qualifications and what tests you carried out to state the faults are alleged wear and tear.

7) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence that the retailer mentioned all wear and tear in the advert to comply with consumer protection from unfair trading regulations 2008. (Mis-advertised)

8) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence that seller had stated in the advert that satellite navigation is broken and not working. (Mis-advertised)

9) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence that you have looked at the copy of advert from the retailer that stated “Looks amazing and nothing that detracts the overall and excellent condition of this vehicle – A very smooth tight drive” but as you will find in the independent report the statement of the advert is far from the truth. (Mis-advertised)

 

10) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence that a short test drive of around ¾’s of a mile is sufficient to highlight all factual faults.

 

11) You are put to strict proof to provide evidence that after paying £5300.00 for a vehicle it is justifiable to spend £5648.31 to correct the defects or your alleged general wear and tear.

 

I have requested a copy of the visa rules and regulations particular to my claim from HSBC but nothing has been made available to myself to date. I have provided you with an independent factual report from a garage whom carry out mechanical repairs on vehicles on a daily basis with over 25yrs experience within the trade and are regulated by VOSA.

 

I look forward to receiving your full and accurate response within the next 7 days from the date of this letter.

 

Regards

XXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

Please find attached -

Copy of the advert from the seller

Independent report from XXXXXXXXXXX (Garage Name Removed).

Copy of V5 (log book) stating 103kilowats (140BHP)

Copy of an extract from Wikipedia stating 103Kilowatts (140BHP)

Copy of the service history book stating 103Kilowatts (140BHP)

Charge back claim letter to be actioned within 14days from the date of this letter / request.

 

 

 

I understand my response may sound aggressive or not professional but I just don't seem to find the logic behind sending them all the information they require and they then miss out all the important details.

 

I still have Visa Europe looking into this also and have contacted the bank asking them to provide evidence of what they have done to determine their decision.

 

I have issued court proceedings and the retailer has till the end of the month to reply due to the 14 day rule and then I can request judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong in getting a bit aggressive when they continue to fob you off. I like it, lets see what they come back with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should in theory be an easy court win. It is not the car that was in the ad, it is 140BHP not 170BHP and will not tow your CARAVAN which is precisely what you bought it for didn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This should in theory be an easy court win. It is not the car that was in the ad, it is 140BHP not 170BHP and will not tow your CARAVAN which is precisely what you bought it for didn't you?

 

 

Yes and that's the truth ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...