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
      • 160 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

Refund from Lloyd’s ref loan but keeping the amount


matt5983
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2258 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

a letter landed at my mums over the weekend

 

It states it’s a notice of sums in arrears when it was transferred and that they got it wrong.

 

I’m owed over £800.

 

However it also states I owed them £4330 so they’ve taken that off the balance will receive nothing

 

This was from 2010

 

However, the £4330 was included into my bankruptcy when I went bankrupt in 2011

therefore I was legally discharged from owing them anything

 

Where do I stand on this ?

 

This covers the period 12/04/210 to 16/01/2018 is also stated

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OR would keep any rebates etc.

 

Lets treat this as if it was a PPI rebate...

 

 

If you took out a PPI policy before you went bankrupt, you're highly unlikely to be able to make a claim or to keep any money that comes out of a claim.

 

This is because if a PPI policy was mis-sold before you were made bankrupt, any claim or potential claim connected to it is counted as an asset. This means it's owned by the official receiver or the trustee, not by you, and is part of the bankruptcy estate.

 

If you've been discharged from bankruptcy, this doesn't change the situation. The official receiver or trustee still owns the right to claim and any money that results from a claim, unless they've agreed to transfer the right back to you.

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OR would keep any rebates etc.

I would go read the PPI / Bankruptcy info available all over the interwebs....

 

If that’s the case then I will ring the OR as Lloyd’s has kept the money for themselves when it should have gone to the OR but I’m also discharged as of last year so be interesting to see what happens

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will be interesting to see

 

If I am wrong then someone please correct me :) - Would be interesting to see if you did get anything...

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

letter states NOSIA was dated 29/03/10 and should have received it 11/04/2010 but never received anything. That’s what the refund is for which is like PPI I’d imagine

 

I can’t see how they can take it off a balance which was the technically made void and therefor no longer exists

Link to post
Share on other sites

ITs not a PPI Payment but i would imagine same rules apply.

I would think its a compo payment but its not even that...

Its a refund on interest i guess at best? Event hen i doubt its still reclaimable.

 

Part of the Bankruptcy states that any payments etc of this nature would go to the OR but a refund on interest would go against the "Written Off Balance"

Essentially, as Lloyds has written off the amoutn due to Bankruptcy they would be entitled to keep the money I would guess... But i dont know if the OR need to be made aware and then if behind the scenes they would deal with it themselves.

 

Basically... You wont see that money i suspect.

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn’t surprise me lol, don’t get that lucky often.

 

I’ll shall make enquires tomorrow about it but I would have seen it as an asset so would have been distributed equally amoungst creditors

Link to post
Share on other sites

they failed to send Notice of sum in arrears letter for XX period

 

that was/is against FSA [now FCA rules]

 

so they charged interest for that period

that's the rebate.

 

its not the same as PPI no in terms of existing BK etc etc.

and it matters not you've been discharged.

 

the fact that BK 'wrote the debt off' is not correct in terms of the originating bank.

just like Statute barring

in E&W it only prevents the OC from enforcing any judgement so they don't bother...

but the debt still exists.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...