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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Lloyds debt SB'd since Oct 13 but Lowells have put defaults all over my credit file


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3395 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

No they are going around in circles with me against Capquest & Shop direct, they cannot see the truth when presented to them, because of the failure to see a bit of paper stating final response, not forth comimg

 

Clearly Lowells & Crapquest know that, which is why they're playing silly billies. I've heard the ICO are worse than useless, which I why I was asking. What are you thinking of doing next? A change of tactic might be needed here, but what that should be, I have no idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dont they have 6 weeks to come up with a proper acknowledged response when re a formal complaint.

if thats expired without a formal complaint response, and want to go to the ico, then state so in the ico complaint. ico shld then deal, or give them a nudge to do something?

otherwise, cld consider one more stern letter, thereafter formal action eg ico, letter before court.....?

 

ps, cld try an 'informal' enquiry with the ico, see what they say, mentioning has gone over 6/8 weeks without a proper response?

Link to post
Share on other sites

dont they have 6 weeks to come up with a proper acknowledged response when re a formal complaint.

if thats expired without a formal complaint response, and want to go to the ico, then state so in the ico complaint. ico shld then deal, or give them a nudge to do something?

otherwise, cld consider one more stern letter, thereafter formal action eg ico, letter before court.....?

 

ps, cld try an 'informal' enquiry with the ico, see what they say, mentioning has gone over 6/8 weeks without a proper response?

 

Sounds good, then I'll have more evidence to show ico that I've tried three times but they're refusing to sort it. I'll give that a go & update this in the new year. Thanks Ford.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there has been no response after 6 weeks, the FOS will ask for proof that the complaint was sent e.g. certificate of postage before they will lift a finger

 

Thanks 2Grumpy It's been about that already since I first wrote to them and I have proof of posting for all the letters I've sent. I'll give the legal and compliance manager one last opportunity to sort it out ( I've sent her a letter this week) and then I will be going to fos, ico etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well despite telling me all activity has been put on hold,

 

 

they've continued to place default markers on my credit file.

 

 

I'm fed up with this now,

 

 

is it time to send a letter before action and take them to court?

 

 

They've had enough opportunity to resolve this and

if the ICO/FOS aren't that great, is legal action at this stage the way to go?

Link to post
Share on other sites

so you sent lowlifes a copy of the old default notice

and a letter demanding the removal of the account as its more than 6yrs since the original default

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

post 34?

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

post 34?

 

 

dx

 

I don't have the old default notice any more, but they've had 6 letters telling them the account is statute barred and they need to remove all the markers they've put on. I've had the same letter 3 times from them saying they're 'investigating' and nothing else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SB'd or not is no reason to remove accounts from a cra file.

 

 

you must have evidence that the DN was sent from documents from the OC?

 

 

send that

clearly stating

the debt has now been defaulted for more than 6yrs

should not be showing

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

SB'd or not is no reason to remove accounts from a cra file.

 

 

you must have evidence that the DN was sent from documents from the OC?

 

 

send that

clearly stating

the debt has now been defaulted for more than 6yrs

should not be showing

 

 

dx

 

 

 

I've not had anything back from the OC in response to my statement of account request. I'll chase that up. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you need the comms or account log

it will be noted by code in that

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't expect a rapid response from the Llloyds DPA team. They took months to even acknowledge receipt of my request. There were gaps in it, they claim to have lost the list of deficiencies that I supplied & we are coming up to the first anniversary of my request - with stuff that I know about missing - never mind the stuff that I don't know about

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey there you go

 

 

let us know w hen it happens

 

 

and keep that letter safe

 

 

in-case they sell it on.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...