Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • you have acknowledged the claim on MCOL [AOS]?? and sent a CPR 31:14?   your defence is due Friday by 4pm
    • so this was a windscreen PCN for the driver walking off the site?   scan up all the paperwork you have had to date and ignored to date  including the front page of the letter of claim and the windscreen ticket.   you've been here long enough and have known about this PCN long enough to have read cag to conclude you should  NOT to have ignored the letter of claim    
    • I know it was over a year ago, but can you remember what you purchased and the name of the shop?  Even if you paid by cash, purchases can still be tracked down. 
    • It's been a while since I had my head in this subject area, but Carey v HSBC was based on determining what the creditor could do to fulfill their obligations when issued with a s.77/78 request by the debtor. It determined that a reconstituted agreement would satisfy the request, so long as it was a true copy. It does not mean the agreement is enforceable if put before the courts. The debtor could, if provided with a recon, decide to accept it and carry on as normal, or dispute it (and potentially withhold payments until the dispute is resolved - if ever).   You are in the position of disputing the recon as being properly executed (amongst other things), which is now at the stage of being put before the court to resolve. Your protection is s.127(3) of the CCA 1974 (repealed in April 2006), which states:   s.127 (3)The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).   The above is what makes a recon unenforceable in your case - but, you need to make a positive assertion to that effect. Whilst DX says Carey is not applicable, I think it's relevant. It explains the role of a recon in law, and it also explains what a properly executed credit agreement looks like, to the extent that could be declared enforceable by an order of the court. It also confirms that the creditor can continue to attempt collection of the debt, but they have no means of recourse through the courts. I would certainly be quoting Carey in support of an assertion that the claimant's recon is unenforceable, and s.127(3) prevents the court from making an enforcement order where s.61(1) was not complied with - as appears to be the case. You will need to spell it out for the court within your statement though. If the claimant is relying on their recon as evidence of their compliance of s.61(1)a then they fail comprehensively due to... (list the points) ...look up what the required prescribed terms are and list them as not being present (the text cannot be read, so they cannot be said to exist on the agreement), and also that all the terms are not contained within the one document (Carey case goes into this in some detail).   You can also throw in your other points relating to the balance and reference numbers, default notice, etc. Pull their case apart with as many arguments as you can. Explain why certain things are needed for the claim to succeed and how the claimant's case does not stack up on those points. Force the claimant to defeat your arguments with appropriate proof/evidence. Cast doubt in every direction you can, but properly support your arguments.   Hope this helps.
    • Am I right in thinking your brother is the keeper of the vehicle, and so VCS are suing him - but you were driving on the day?  In your first post you wrote "I received a PCN" but did you really mean your brother did?   if so, you can prepare the paperwork in his name if you want, and a decent defence later on will probably lead Simple Simon of VCS to wet himself and give in (if you look through the forum, there are very recent examples of this).   However, in the unlikely event that VCS go all the way to court, it will be your brother appearing, so it'd be a good idea if he too started to learn the legal procedure and how to beat these fleecers.
  • Our picks

TEanciousP

WMS Warranty ended in court. We won. Finally

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1052 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

Firstly, EVERY point in this review and statement here is backed up with copies of emails, court filings and recordings. So whatever WMS say in response it is true and court records reflect that.

 

 

What to say about WMS? http://www.wmsgroup.co.uk/motor-trade-warranties/car-warranty/

Sit back because this is a hell of a story. Well my father in law purchased a 5 star policy from them to cover his Range Rover Sport. He paid extra to have main dealer work undertaken should anything go wrong.

 

2 years into the agreement the engine was destroyed by an incident where was breached after an internal failure. Pretty much fatal. He tried to make a claim against this warranty. This is where our near two year battle started.

 

 

At first it was declined because he didn’t use a Vat registered garage even though this wasn’t a requirement of the policy he took out.

 


he was told he HAD to take it out of a main Caffyns dealer as they would not pay dealer pricing even though he paid for the 5 star warranty which included this.

 


After 3 months we finally got them to agree to get an engineer to inspect the vehicle. They used ACE, a company they have used on numerous occasions and who does work under contract for WMS. Not surprisingly they decline the claim. Firstly they claimed low oil. Then aerated oil. Because it was oil related they said they would not pay out. At this point we were dealing with the MD directly, John Collingswood.

 

We asked to appeal. At first WMS did not have a clue what they are doing. In fact pretty much throughout despite numerous requests they never once supplied me with a formal complaints for appeal process.

 

 

Eventually they agreed we could get another engineer to comment. We did and they found that this was not oil related. We submitted the report to WMS who then asked a senior engineer at ACE to reply (he had and has never seen the car). He stood by ACE findings even though the report from DEKRA picked apart the claims. Claim was declined again. During this time we were accused of riving the car to destruction, low oil and not servicing the vehicle correctly by Mr. Collingswood who always had a reason to not want to pay out.

 

We instructed a further engineer MET who also found that this was not oil related and not wear and tear. Report submitted to WMS and again ACE response via an engineer who had never seen the vehicle

 

. The claim rejection was upheld. Again we asked to appeal. Again WMS had no idea of what their own policy or procedure for this was which was even more worrying as we were dealing directly with the company MD.

 

 

Also over this time as I was helping my father in law, Mr. Collingwood called my employer and the police on me (I was sending him regular emails which in his eyes was harassment). My employer wasn’t bothered and the police said it was a civil matter. These bullying tactics were prevalent throughout – blocking email accounts so we couldn’t contact then, legal threats, insults (he accused me of having “special needs” in one email)

 

 

We were eventually told a joint report would need to be undertaken as the final part of the appeal but this never took place as ACE and WMS kept moving the goal posts.

 

 

Eventually WMS tried to charge us £1500 for this report to take place.

Which obviously we refused.

Not one cost had been refunded or met.

 

 

They refused to issue a formal decline letter or settle on an actual reason for decline.

They blocked further email accounts so we could not speak to them and would not take our calls.


 

 

As this was not a FCA agreement we could not go to the Ombudsman and had zero come back.



Most people would have walked away.

We took the case to the small claims court.

 

 

It took over a year.

3 appearances in a court room.

And literally thousands of pages of emails, notes and work.

 

 



WMS hired a firm of local solicitors (Stephen Rimmer) at great cost (the solicitor costs would have been at least 3 times what the final settlement and claim was if not more).

They even hired a barrister to represent them in court (at probably several £100 an hour).

 

At every turn they tried to out spend, out muscle and threaten and scare us off.

They failed.

 

 

After MUCH work and a whole day in court,

a year later we won a judgment and pay out.



WMS lost. And decisively at that.

 

 

The judge ruled that this was NOT lack of oil,

was NOT caused by not maintaining the vehicle,

was NOT due to the vehicle being driven to destruction

and was NOT caused by anything we could have foreseen.

 

 

It was a mechanical failure and therefore the policy should have paid out.

The judge dismissed the ACE engineer and his report,

the opinions of Mr. Collingwood

and awarded my father in law a settlement of just under the small claims limit.

 

 

In short we won, we beat WMS and they had to pay out because they declined a claim for no just or reasonable reason.

 

 



My father in-law still lost money

– hire car charges not covered,

loss of wages etc.

(not to mention the cost of the worthless warranty)

- but the money paid for the engineers, experts and the replacement of the engine which he funded himself out of his own money.

 

WMS tried to bully us.

Scare us.

Threaten us.

And lied.

 

 

All so they didn’t have to pay out on what was a valid claim.

If we lost we would have been liable for several thousand pounds in costs, court fees and expert fees.

 

 

It was a risk but we were in the right and knew it form the off.

They tried to spend more, use their solicitors to try to scare us off. Didn't work.

 

The message here is simple:

 

 

DO NOT USE WMS.

Don't even think about it.

Move on.

 

 

Read forums and other review sites other than Reevoo (see below)

They are a terrible company who use under handed tactics and bullying to avoid paying out.

 

 

There MD is not above using underhanded tactics to scare you off

– from calling employers,

to the police

and lying to both.

 

 

If you do not have a FAC regulated agreement you have NO legal come back unless you are willing to go to court and risk losing.

 

Again AVOID WMS like the plague.

There warranty is not worth the paper its printed on.

 

 

Checked out the Revoo score on their website ? 96%

This is ONLY from people they have paid out to (read the small print) and does not reflect the real feedback that is all over the net.

 

 

WMS do NOT payout.

The warranty is worthless.

More over the company are morally dubious in their tactics and way they treat customers.

 

There is no external or formal appeal and if the MD doesn't like you he will try to ruin your life as well as take money from you.

 

We are free of WMS now and their tactics after near two years hard work.

Please don't put yourself in this position.

 

(NB: WMS appealed this judgement.

Today we went to court and the judge threw out the appeal.

We have finally won this case after 893 days from the original issue occurring.

We won.

WMS have spent over £35k fighting this claim in court. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG.

 

Well done on the win.

I have to ask though, why was this NOT an FCA covered agreement?


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done. What was the value of the claim?

 

Have you thought now about seeking compensation from WMS Warranty http://www.wmsgroup.co.uk/motor-trade-warranties/car-warranty/ for their unfair treatment of you?

 

If you have a judgement in your pocket and they have also failed on appeal, then I think that you have an extremely good chance and a fairly easy ride courts getting an additional sum in compensation from them under ICOBS.

 

We would be very pleased to help you


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The agreement was not FAC regulated as not all warranty products are. To be honest I'm sure my father in law would happily talk to any no win no fee on compensation! Message me up for intro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops, my bad.

 

I don't know why but I thought it was an insurance policy.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well I wouldn't mess about now

 

 

go straight to the high court and get HCEO bailiffs involved

and enforce it by them.

only cost £60 I think

 

 

that way they'll have bailiffs at their door and have even more money added on top for the HCEO fess..hint hint...

 

 

dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whoops, my bad.

 

I don't know why but I thought it was an insurance policy.

 

If you buy a warranty isn't that a form of insurance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In law, yes but as this company doesnt belong to any organisation (insurance ombudsman etc) that covers such things it makes me wonder why they havent been wound up as a company for offering insurance services without the necessary consents. I suppose that they do it in the same way as many unlcenced pawnbrokers run, they say it is somehting else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they will go bust soon if people keep sueing them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...