Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks Bank Fodder for laying out the pro's and cons.   I think that because the missing paperwork on the 100k service was missing will help in our favour, as Ford say the automatic gearbox must be serviced at either 35k or 2 years which it wasn't, this was disclosed at the time of sale and only a very basic service was done and stamped in the book.   I am very surprised that the finance company closed the complaint so quickly.   At the moment the car is at an independent garage, luckily it is where I get my van serviced so I know the owner. Should we leave the car there as in one of the emails the finance company told him not to drive the car, or shall they drive it home which is around 3 miles?
    • I'm trying to think in terms of tactics here.   Because the vehicle purchase has been made on hire purchase, that means that the finance company is the owner of the vehicle and strictly speaking your direct action is against them in breach of contract because they have all the obligations to you under the consumer rights act that they would have if they had been the dealer. On the other hand I still like the idea of going against the dealer – which you could do on the basis that you enjoy third party rights of direct action under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. Of course you could sue the finance company and you could win – in fact you probably will win: there is clearly been some kind of misrepresentation at the very least – and maybe a deception. It's rather a coincidence isn't it that certain important information has been omitted from the documents supplied to you. However, if you sue the finance company then I don't think it will provide a quick solution. From what you have told us so far it seems to me that there is a certain urgency. I think that the finance company will simply get into obstructive mode and simply try to cause you trouble – because they will instruct their usual solicitors – and I'm afraid to say that solicitors are incapable of taking a pragmatic view. The longer it goes on then the more they can charge the client. The more obstructive they can be then the more there client naïvely is impressed – and at the end of the day the more obstructive they become, the more likely they are to wear you down and to achieve some kind of negotiated settlement where you agree to sacrifice some of what you are entitled to – and the client – the finance company then sees that as some kind of – Win. I think a quicker route to success is to sue the dealer – and at the same time you could bring an FOS complaint against the finance company. Of course if you sue the dealer, they will start off by pleading that you don't have a contract with them. That's true – but you would be relying on the provisions of the 1999 act – and it is clear that you are an intended beneficiary of the contract and I scarcely imagine that they have expressly excluded your rights to bring an action against the dealer. I would expect they hadn't even thought about it. One of the rules about bringing a complaint to the financial ombudsman service is that you are not allowed to do that if there is a legal action underway at the same time. I can imagine that if you brought a complaint against them to the FOS, that the finance company will plead that there is a legal action – but I think that you would have a good argument to say that the legal action is against the dealer and that the complaint to the FOS is clearly independent of that legal action. The FOS is very cosy with finance companies – and they may accept the position of the finance company and refuse to be involved – but on the other hand they may side with you and continue with their investigation against the finance company. This would mean that you would have two irons in the fire at the same time. You could simply bring a complaint against the finance company to the FOS – but as I've already suggested, this will take an awful long time and it may not be resolved before 12 months is up – meanwhile you have the problem of not having the vehicle. So my favourite course of action at the moment is to threaten the dealer with a legal action on the basis of your third party rights – and separately to begin a complaint to the FOS about the finance company. I think the dealer would be extremely surprised to find that they were subject to the legal action when they had thought that they are being protected by the hire purchase rules. However, I think that they would eventually be obliged to confront the reality that they were going to be a defendant in the court case. I think they are the weakest link and they are the route to getting the fastest result. I see that the dealers describe themselves as some kind of finance company themselves. But I don't notice any FCA registration or any other signs that they are a finance company or that they have the kind of expertise behind them which you would expect the finance company. Have you any further ideas on that point?  
    • Some clinical staff are receiving weekly tests - my daughter in law for oine who looks after people with compromised immune systems   Absolutely zero none clinical staff that i know of get tests at all, let alone regularly, although some are now starting to get a home test for use if they get symptoms - long overdue.   As an aside, my immediate family is registered at 3 different GP serguries. One in particular is little more than a joke with everything 'don't come in it might be covid - go for a test or to hospital minor injuries. We went for test and surgery and that surgery then said (o/h surgery) - well its only valid on day.   You would think we are 10 days into a pandemic - not ten months.          
    • Hi Dx, I have only just started helping them yesterday, all the complete so far has been done by my son in law. I am just getting all the correspondence together and make a full list later
  • Our picks

Lowell/lowells sols claimform - old Vodafone mobile 'debt'***Claim Discontinued***


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1564 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

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

.. I'm pretty sure that in about 2 or 3 weeks it's SB anyway.

good, the sb clock shld restart after the discontinuance.

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it would have becone SB'd in a few weeks before a claim was brought then it will revert back to as though the claim never happened

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

 

 

 

GEMHL Settled

Barclaycard Settled

A & L SETTLED IN FULL :lol:

Spml Reluctantly withdrawn

Blackhorse pre 31-7-06 Demand removal sent 23 8 06. ICO ordered removal jan 2007....REMOVED:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
If it would have becone SB'd in a few weeks before a claim was brought then it will revert back to as though the claim never happened

ah ok, i see what you mean. back to the claim issue, not after the discon? :)

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

if it was disc'd the SB clock restarts, it was only paused.

so if its 6yrs since, then tough luck them!

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

Lets say the SB clock had 3 months to run before it hit 6 years but then a claimform is issued, this pauses the clock.

2 months into the claim process, a notice of discontinuance is issued.

There is then only 1 month left till it would become SB'd not another 3 months from discontinuance.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

 

 

 

GEMHL Settled

Barclaycard Settled

A & L SETTLED IN FULL :lol:

Spml Reluctantly withdrawn

Blackhorse pre 31-7-06 Demand removal sent 23 8 06. ICO ordered removal jan 2007....REMOVED:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

no

ok lets explain it another way...

 

when a claimform is issued the clock splits

bit like lets say like a split time on a stopwatch

the main timer keeps running.

 

if the claim is successful or it get stayed

or for any other reason that assumes the case 'may' restart, it stays in split mode

 

if the case is killed then the split time is thus cancelled and we revert to the mainclock that was always running.

 

 

no 'time' is lost if the claim fails

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...