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

Mint Telephone Harsassment with pointless calls


thecornflake
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6340 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

Ok, so a very quick version of events -

 

Beginning of month, DD fails. Next day get message to call them. I cal back and they say "You missed a payment" and I say "Yes I know" and they say "You can just add it to December's payment if you like". I confirmed with them this was fine and have several more times. Which is great. However, then the calls started. So I get a message on my mobile - "This is Mint please call us on 0870... immediately." Note here that 0870 numbers are expensive. However there is an 0800 number for people who can't pay so I use that one and then get put through to the right dept eventually:D .

 

I said "I got a message bla bla" and they say "yesy it's still fine to pay in December but you will still get calls until it's paid." Which I have. Every day. And my wife gets them at home. So I called them and aske dthem to stop the calls but they said they were within their rights to keep calling.

 

I've contacted Trading standards and lodged a complaint which they are now investigating.

 

Also I edited the template letter from this forum and here is my version -

 

Account # xxxxx

 

Dear Sir,

 

I am writing to you regarding the above account and the calls I am receiving several times a day from yourselves.

I spoke to someone at your company at the beginning of the month due to my direct debit payment failing. The person I spoke to stated it was perfectly acceptable for this missed payment to be added on to the direct debit due to go out on the 3rd of December and that no further action on my part was necessary. However, I have continued to recieve several messages on my mobile phone each day urging me to return the calls immediatley and my wife also receives at least one call per day at our home despite repeatedly explaining

that I am at work during normal office hours.

 

I called again on 13th November 2006 as I assumed due to the continuation of the calls that there must be a separate issue with my account but discovered that although it was still acceptable that I make a double payment in December the calls will still carry on regardless. I was advised to just ignore all future calls from your company. I view this to be an unacceptable course of action as I would not know the precise nature of the call until I returned the message and if I ignore all calls and message from your company I could end up being unaware of any further issues that may arise on my account.

 

Despite requesting several times to no longer be contacted by phone, during the latest call to my wife at home today (17th November 2006) at 11:30am she was told that your company is perfectly within your rights to continue these calls and they will continue until the arrears have been cleared. It was also denied that we receive at least one all per day even though I have been keeping full logs that provide evidence to the contrary.

 

I will not return any of these calls as for one the number given is an 0870 number to which calls are charged at a high rate and secondly all that will happen is I will be told I didn't need to call in the first place.

 

I would like to point out that I do not have a problem with discussing matters regarding my account over the telephone in normal circumstances. Hwoever, in this instance as an arrangement has already been agreed with yourselves I see no reason for these additional calls whatsoever.

 

The messages left on my mobile phone are in direct breach of Office of Fair Trading guidelines, specifically those which state -

1) [Creditors must not] "Leave messages for you to contact someone urgently with no explanation".

2) "Ignoring or disregarding Debtors legitimate wishes in respect of when and where to contact them"

 

Despite my explaining this each time I have to spoken to someone about this matter, you seem unwilling to comply with the guidelines and I have therefore now registered a formal complaint with Trading Standards.

 

I am also of the view that your continued harassment by telephone puts you not only in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 but also contravenes the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The offence of causing harassment is arrestable under the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and attracts the powers associated with such offences. Section 3 enables a person who is, or may become, the victim of behaviour prohibited by Section 1 to take civil proceedings against the perpetrator.

 

 

Because of the nature of these calls and the distress already caused to my family I now formally request that all future contact is made by post and no more calls are made to any telephone numbers you hold against my name in your records.

 

For your information note that all further telephone calls and voice messages will now be recorded.

 

Additionally, due to this type of debt collection method being contrary to the ‘Administration of Justice Act 1970’ in that it appears to be intended to cause alarm and distress to the recipient, in the event of the calls continuing information will also be submitted to the relevant authorities for consideration of your fitness to hold a licence under the Consumer Credit Act.

 

If you continue to harass me by telephone, you will also be in breach of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) and I will report this breach to both Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading, meaning that you will be liable to a substantial fine.

 

Please take further note that continued telephone calls after the receipt of a request not to call may also constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

 

Communicate in writing and ONLY in writing, your telephone calls will NOT be answered.

 

Yours faithfully

 

The Cornflake.

 

Any comments (I know there are spelling mistakes!) before I send it off?

If you found this post useful please click on the scales above.

 

Egg - £400 - Prelim sent. On hold.

Mint - On the list Est £800

GE Capital - On the list (3 accounts!) Est £4000

 

MBNA - £545 Prelim sent 13/11/2006

LBA sent 1/12/2006

£350 partial payment received 18/12/2006.

Full settlement received 20/1/07

 

NatWest - Est £4000 not incl interest

Data Protection Act Sent 10/1/07

Statements received 24/1/07

Prelim sent 3/2/07

Full Settlement received 22/2/07

 

The contents of this post are the sole opinions of The Cornflake and not necessarily the opinions of any other members of this group. They do not constitute sound legal or financial advice and if in doubt you are advised to seek advice from a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

A quick update on this - The Trading Standards office in whatever town Mint are based are now launching a full investigation into this complaint.:D

If you found this post useful please click on the scales above.

 

Egg - £400 - Prelim sent. On hold.

Mint - On the list Est £800

GE Capital - On the list (3 accounts!) Est £4000

 

MBNA - £545 Prelim sent 13/11/2006

LBA sent 1/12/2006

£350 partial payment received 18/12/2006.

Full settlement received 20/1/07

 

NatWest - Est £4000 not incl interest

Data Protection Act Sent 10/1/07

Statements received 24/1/07

Prelim sent 3/2/07

Full Settlement received 22/2/07

 

The contents of this post are the sole opinions of The Cornflake and not necessarily the opinions of any other members of this group. They do not constitute sound legal or financial advice and if in doubt you are advised to seek advice from a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks like a darn good letter to me and i would say you have them on that completely. I am waiting for a relpy myself from MBNA due to their similar harassment via telephone with 7+ calls a day every day. I changed my number in the end. The silence is just heaven! ;)

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...