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

Canada Square Operations [Egg] p


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2840 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

Canada Square Operations are citing the Financial Conduct Authority's regulatory review in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Plevin as a justification for being unable to consider my claim for mis-sold PPI on an Egg credit card until such time as the FCA publishes its guidance.

 

Let me be clear, it's not that Canada Square Operations have rejected my claim but have said they will revisit it in light of any additional rules / guidance deemed necessary by the FCA. Rather, they have said they won't even consider it until the FCA publishes its conclusions.

 

Now, it seems to me this is a nonsense for the following reasons:

 

[1] I've completed and returned a FOS questionnaire which makes clear the basis on which I think the PPI was mis-sold – essentially, I applied for the credit card online and was unable to proceed with my application if I unticked a pre-ticked box requesting PPI.

 

This being the case, it seems clear to me that the PPI was mis-sold and whatever the FCA guidance might / might not turn out to be apropos Plevin and the role of undisclosed commissions is irrelevant.

 

[2] Notwithstanding [1], I applied for this credit card in October 1999, ie long before Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 kicked in, and the account was settled in full long before April 2008 when the legislation began to apply regardless of when an agreement was entered into.

 

In these circumstances, it seems to me nonsensical for Canada Square Operations to refuse to consider my claim and instead invite me to go straight to the FOS, whereby they would, I believe, incur a fee in excess of £500 to investigate a complaint which I am confident would be upheld.

 

 

Aside from the annoyance / inconvenience it would cause me [waiting for the Ombudsman's ruling], I can't see what possible motivation Canada Square Operations could have for taking this course of action.

 

With this in mind, I'm minded to write back making the very same points I've made above but, before doing so, would welcome the thoughts and opinions of my fellow CAGgers.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is well known

nd even documented on the FOS website regarding the issues with the EGG website at the time

requiring the PPI box to be ticked

before you were allowed to resume the application.

 

 

i'd gotto the FOS with this.

 

 

whatever they are siting regarding the FCA [what is this ?? the 3yrs letter rule?]

i'd gotto the fos with it.

 

 

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

whatever they are siting regarding the FCA [what is this ?? the 3yrs letter rule?]

i'd gotto the fos with it.

 

dx

 

Canada Square Operations are saying my complaint could be impacted by the guidance the FCA is working on in light of Plevin and that they won't be able to consider it until this is published.

 

I think this is a smokescreen, as my claim doesn't cite Plevin and, in any case, falls outside the timeframe for it to come into play.

 

At the same time, I'm aware of the FOS backlog and, that being the case, keen to make Canada Square Operations see sense and consider my complaint now [thereby avoiding the £500-plus fee they will incur if I take it to the FOS].

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

don't think I've seen any cases of hidden commission with EGG stuff?

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

Hi Fred-Funk,

 

You won't make CSO see sense. They are deliberately awkward and will do anything to delay things. They will say anything to try to prevent you going forward.

I think you have to resign yourself to a long hard wait and battle. The sooner you start it the better. Line up all your ducks. Complaint to FOS straight-away.

 

I speak from my own battles with them (4 and a 1/2 years so far).

 

Good Luck.

REMEMBER! Hunger is the enemy - NOT the hungry!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...