Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Pepper UK/engage mortgage/Mars Capital - excessive unlawful fees reclaim+Eviction


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2651 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

  • 8 months later...
  • Replies 538
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It looks okay.

 

However, what was the unexpected bill?

Unless it was something of drastic importance - e.g. boiler repair, then don't expect the judge to be particularly sympathetic towards it.

 

However, the plus side is that you've brought your order up to date, so the judge should suspend the warrant on the basis that something specific occurred, but you are now able to continue payments, and in fact increase them slightly.

 

With regards to the arrears figure, you absolutely need to draw this to the judge's attention.

Once an agreement is in place, particularly a court ordered agreement, the mortgagee is no longer able to add additional charges to the account (unless of course payments were missed etc).

 

Your arrears figure should reflect the payments made against it

- but expect them to state that during the time you missed payments they had additional costs.

BUT these costs should not be included as 'arrears'.

 

It is unlikely that the rep the mortgagee will send to the hearing will have any details about charges etc,

however, you can ask the judge to direct that they supply you with a complete breakdown of the arrears by a given date (ask for it to be supplied to you in 14 days).

 

You must also mention that you tried to pay and the payment was returned (bring proof to the court).

 

I think you stand a very good chance of having the warrant stayed as you have brought your agreement up to date.

Things happen unexpectedly and judges are more than aware of that.

 

Unless people are wantonly not paying their mortgage, judges aren't too quick to give possession to the mortgagee.

So long as you will clear the arrears in the lifetime of the mortgage term, you should be all right.

 

Good luck!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

If you're married, then you have what are called home rights, which means that the mortgagee has to inform you of any action they take. In some instances, home rights that existed before the mortgage was taken out, means that your home rights supersede the mortgage charge...which means your share in any beneficial interest has to be accounted for first. They can't simply ignore you because you aren't named on the mortgage.

 

If you're not married, then they are probably just covering all bases by including you because they know you live there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...