Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This time you do need to reply to them with a snotty letter to show you'd be big trouble for them if they did try court. We will help this evening.  
    • Hi, I just wanted to update the post and ask some further advice  I sent the CCA and CPR request on the 14th May, to date I have had no reply to the CCA but I received a load of paperwork from the CPR request a few days ago. I need to file the defence today and from the information I have read the following seems to be what is required.  I would be grateful if some one could confirm suitability   Claim The claim is for the sum of £255.69 due by the Defendant under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a PayPal account with an account reference of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)  The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which has not been complied with. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 15-09-21, notice of which has been given to the defendant. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £0.00. The Claimant claims the sum of £255.69   Defence  The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have had financial dealings with PayPal  in the past but cannot recollect the account number referred to by the Claimant. 2. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am not aware of service of a Default Notice by the original creditor the Claimant refers to within its particulars of claim.  3. Paragraph 3 is noted. On the 14/5/2024 I requested information related to this claim by way of a Section 77 request, which was received and signed for by the claimant on 20/5/2024. As of today, the Claimant has failed to respond to this request, and therefore remains in default of the section 77 request and therefore unable to enforce any alleged agreement until its compliance. 4. Therefore it is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and: (b) Show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice Pursuant to s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 5. Paypal (Europe) S.A.R.L is out of the juristriction of English Courts. 6. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 7. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or any relief.
    • Thanks @dx100ukI followed the advice given on here... then it went very quiet!  The company was creditfix I think then transferred to Knightsbridge (or the other way around) The scammer independent advisor was Roger Wallis-having checked his LinkedIn profile just this morning, it does look like he's still scamming vulnerable people... I know I was stupid for taking his advice, but i do wonder how many others he has done this to over a longer period of time (it came as a  massive shock to him when our IVA suddenly failed). Lowell have our current address (and phone numbers if the rejected calls over the past couple of days is anything to go by!) No point trying the SB because of the correspondence in 2019? Thanks
    • I have received the following letter from BW Legal today.  Also includes form if I admit the debt and wanting my income details.  Do I reply to this LETTER OF CLAIM please?  Looks like they are ready for court now??  Thank You BW Legal - Letter of Claim.pdf
    • According to Wikipedia - yeah, I know - the site is owned by Croydon Council. It's at least worth a try to contact the council and ask for a contact in The Colonnades. You could then lay it on thick about being a genuine customer and ask them to call their dogs off. It's got to be worth a try  https://www.croydon.gov.uk/contact-us/contact-us  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Think I was ripped off when px my car


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2884 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

I part exchanged my car yesterday and about an hour of driving the new one I felt it wasn't driving well. Not sure what the problem was but I just wasn't happy with it. I drove back to the dealer and requested to have my old car back.

They told me I wouldn't get the £99 administration fee back as it was non refundable but also that they would give me £100 less from the extra money I had paid on top of my car as they had already cleaned my car and listed it for sale which had cost them money. I left £199 short but couldn't really say anything as I'm not sure of my rights on this. Can they do this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

The consumer rights act is your friend here. you are entitled to a full refund if a car is faulty within 30 days of purchase so 1 hour of use certainly qualifies.

 

If you can record a call, ring them and get it on 'tape' otherwise write and tell them you want a full refund of the amount outstanding or court action will follow

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

The consumer rights act is your friend here. you are entitled to a full refund if a car is faulty within 30 days of purchase so 1 hour of use certainly qualifies.

 

If you can record a call, ring them and get it on 'tape' otherwise write and tell them you want a full refund of the amount outstanding or court action will follow

 

What about if I just changed my mind?

Do I have to lose this money?

Also.. They said they returned my car manual and wallet but it's not in the car and they are telling me they put it in there. I'm starting to think they've taken it to use for the other Volvo in the lot. This whole episode has been a complete nightmare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ps.. The mot the dealership gave the car was completely dodgy and had something to do with my decision to reject it. Basically the faults on the mot previous to theirs.. Which they did 8 months before it was due to run out were still present on the car despite their new mot not showing any faults. Also the car engine warning light began to show when I was driving the car back. I spoke to the consumer rights advice line who told me it was up to me to prove the car was faulty and that the fault didn't occur whilst I owned the car. So for such a dodgy company as theirs.. I'm sure they'd manage to worm their way out of it. What gets me is that some poor bugger will buy that car and when I comes to the mot, will have a big bill to pay for just because the dealer wanted to make a few more quid

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I see it, this makes no difference. You felt there was something not right so you took it back. There is no way an admin fee of £99 can be right nor can £100 for a clean be correct either.

 

I have moved your thread to our motoring forum. More experienced people here will offer more advice (hopefully)

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that they are within their rights to charge for betterment but I cannot see that they could have valeted or cleaned the car within the alleged hour. Ask them to prove it. Of course it is area dependent so if central London this would not be unreasonable as opposed to say north Yorkshire. You need to be a bit careful about the MOT as it sounds like advisories which are not the same as fails. Advisories can go on for a number of years depending on what they are. For example, my Focus gets the same advisories every year but it has yet to fail. One day it will but until they do or the tester considers them too bad to continue that is what they will be, advisory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrespective of what has been done to the car, you are entitled by regulation to a full refund. If the px car has been sold and a nice profit made on it, you are also entitled to that profit as well.

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure you are correct Conniff as if what you say is true a dealer could take in part ex a wreck, spend a load of money on it and sell it at a small profit and then under the law as you portray it the original owner 5 months later can reject and claim the profit,.....I don't think so???

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I read that in the regulations somewhere and am trying to find it again. I will put up a link when I do.

 

There is no guidance on this in the new regulations, so will dig into the older other acts.

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically they had the guy who works on the yard give it a once over with the Hoover.

The mot was done so that any buyer looking at a car with no advisories wouldn't be put off when looking at that car so for me it has an impact on my descision to buy the car or not. Anyway,I think it's up to me to prove the car was faulty and I'm a bit concerned they will just make the car disappear or even sell it if I attempt to take them to court. Or they could just deny everything and say I have it back because I changed my mind. I'll give it a go anyway. Does anyone know the procedure for claiming my money back please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems here is that the OP's opinion is that it is faulty without stating what he thinks the faults are. Irrespective of the new regulations the sellar still has to be given the right to rectify and so far we don't know what is wrong. It's all pointing to buyer remorse at the moment !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...