Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have just located the fees being charged.   They are:  4/11/20client admin fees £60 no dates available for these fees: PDC Instruction fee £240 PDC additional costs: £10  
    • let us guess....i bet we all know...
    • Which bailiff company was involved ?    
    • If you mean the variable speed limits imposed you will have to contact the Highways Agency.   If you have a Notice of Intended Prosecution for an alleged speeding offence and you ask for "photographs to assist in identifying the driver" you will usually be given a link to show the photographs taken from the gantry. Most cameras are designed so that a secondary photo of the gantry display is taken at the same time.
    • Thank you both.    I was not sure how much info to load at first.  Will therefore clarify better below :  Full year service charge:£2205.82 (1/5/20-30/4/21) I then paid various instalments, totalling to date : £1483.56 Two refunds were made from Firstport, for service charge credit adjustments of: £273.91 Outstanding amount : £448.35   As mentioned in my first post,  I did miss August. I did not receive a payment plan, so have carried on paying regularly. I received no ‘default’ paperwork until 4 November when a letter arrived from Firstports debt agency. PDC with demands for payments and extra fees/fines.    I have emailed PDC about 8 times since, together with lots of phone calls.  They have put my file on hold a number of times, to investigate further. Always coming back to me with incorrect information. They said I was emailed on 30th October, with a link to Firstport’s online portal saying I had missed a payment and to take a look at my account on-line. I have this email which was sent by Firstport on 5th November   A day after, the debt collectors had posted a letter.  I have explained it all to PDC again, in yet another email that they are incorrect. No answer as usual. 
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 986 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

Personally I think you're on a hiding to nothing as from your posts you knowingly failed to disclose a material fact which has a proportionate effect on the deal agreed/contract. Theoretically they could come after you come after you on an attempt to defraud. The fact it was only at the last minute they uncovered this as it could be argued this was part of due diligence. Prior to this I would deem it to be an invitation to treat. I think you might be on a bit of a sticky wicket here so would suggest it might be best to let sleeping dogs lie??

Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry but this is mainly completely wrong.

 

 

Funny that as your subsequent statement on this post seems to support the fact. Further as you know until money exchanges hands the contract is open and the OP has openly and publicly admitted he knowingly did not inform the trader of a major material fact that would affect the contract price. I think if this went to court the trader would have a good chance of winning. As I point out the trader did indeed carry out due diligence prior to contract conclusion where the issue became apparent. However under these circumstances the trader should return the deposit and the OP should bare this in mind when trading in the car. At the end of the day is the OP prepared to go the distance with the challenge? It will cost more than the deposit lost, carries huge risk and could potentially cost the OP more than the deposit. I'd personally advise the OP walks away and put's it down to lessons learnt

Link to post
Share on other sites
funny that as your subsequent statement on this post seems to support the fact. Further as you know until money exchanges hands the contract is open and the op has openly and publicly admitted he knowingly did not inform the trader of a major material fact that would affect the contract price. I think if this went to court the trader would have a good chance of winning. As i point out the trader did indeed carry out due diligence prior to contract conclusion where the issue became apparent. However under these circumstances the trader should return the deposit and the op should bare this in mind when trading in the car. At the end of the day is the op prepared to go the distance with the challenge? It will cost more than the deposit lost, carries huge risk and could potentially cost the op more than the deposit. I'd personally advise the op walks away and put's it down to lessons learnt

 

this ^^^^^

Link to post
Share on other sites

At last, people are beginning to see the point. Yes I believe you should be entitled to the deposit back which I have previously stated but what were the terms and conditions of the trade in. The OP has admitted he omitted the fact it was a Cat D write off which has a material fact on the contract. I think this is another case where the issue is being egged on which will lead to tears.

 

 

For the £500 involved I'd be walking away and putting down to experience at the moment. It just isn't worth the risk! Morally I think the dealer should reimburse as I have previously stated but then again, morally you should have disclosed the status of the car at the time. At the time of contract you knowingly did not disclose a material fact and there is no escaping that irrespective of what bankfodder says.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the dealers response could be:

 

 

Yes we admit that happened but subsequent due diligence checks prior to execution of the contract showed up material facts which had been deliberately withheld. We contend that this was done with intent to defraud.

 

 

How do you intend to get out of that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
And the dealers response could be:

 

 

Yes we admit that happened but subsequent due diligence checks prior to execution of the contract showed up material facts which had been deliberately withheld. We contend that this was done with intent to defraud.

 

 

How do you intend to get out of that?

 

 

Hi Helios

 

the OP should have declared that his car was a Cat D....without question.

 

the dealer eventually did the right thing by hpi checking it and backed off (i would have backed off too)

 

the dealer ought to have held the original deal open but taken the px element out of it.

 

But they cannot 'fine' the OP for trying to defraud them. Only a court can fine you for doing something wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where have Helios' an my posts gone?

 

FWIW I AGREE that the op should get his money back - ridiculous, they can't just keep his money.

 

And I'm not suggesting any fraud either - but the OP SHOULD have declared his Cat D at the time.

 

These motoring boards are getting quieter, which is unsurprising if you're going to censor them to show only your POV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree Oddjob, Bank fodder owns this site and controls it and if he or any or any other members of his site team disagree with opinion voiced then it tends to be moved or deleted. But then hey ho, who are we , or what position are we in to question a dictatorship? It would be nice to know how much he earns out of it too!

 

 

Both you and I have pointed out we agree the OP is entitled to the deposit back (something he seems to have missed) but what we are both pointing out is that a failure to disclose a material known fact on a pre executed contract allows parties to withdraw from that contract and at point of execution!

 

 

To be honest, the reason this site is getting quieter is:

1. Because of the above

2. The lack of credibility in some of the responses. Especially from the site team.

3. The lack of detail in the original question asked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 986 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...