Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi slick!    On 22 July they said they would refund me £74.07 Theres no DD in place as my membership was a once off payment in November last year.  Hi Dx,    I paid through PayPal last year as a one off payment. 
    • I'm trying to understand it all but I certainly tend to agree with my colleague @dx100uk that it looks as if you may have been taken for a ride. You found an advertisement for a bag on an online sales site. Instead of going through the established procedure of that site, which presumably allows them to recover a commission from the seller you started dealing directly with the seller who is an unknown person to you and of course that allowed the seller to avoid paying the commission. At whose suggestion was it that you went off-site? You then pay by PayPal but instead of logging it with PayPal as a payment for a purchased item, you tell PayPal that it was actually simply a gift or transaction between friends and family. This also allowed the seller to avoid paying a PayPal fee on the money. At whose suggestion was it that you paid in this way?       I don't say that you definitely have been scammed, but it doesn't look very good. This is how it might have happened: after you agreed to take the transaction off-site, so you lost the protection of the established system – and the seller avoided the commission and also avoided the sales site knowing that they had sold their item, you then agreed to pay the seller some money – but not for a purchase – simply as a gift. This has two consequences. Firstly, the seller avoids a PayPal fee and secondly, because PayPal has been misled as to the purpose of the payment, you lose the protection of PayPal if it turns out that you've been scammed or there is some other problem with the transaction. The seller then apparently sent you the parcel and they sent you pictures of a package with your address on it. Separately they sent you a Hermes tracking number – but there is no evidence that the package was actually posted to your address. The seller might simply have taken a picture with your address and sent that to you by way of reassurance – and then changed the label and posted the parcel to themselves but sent you a tracking number which is inaccessible to you and in respect of which you will be prevented from getting any information. All you've seen is a parcel with your address on it. All you've been given is a tracking number which satisfied you for a while until the parcel did not arrive and then when you started to make enquiries, you found that you were unable to access any details referring to the tracking number. Of course the tracking number says that the item was delivered – because maybe it was – but in that case it was delivered to the address on the parcel which might have been the seller's own address – or the address of a friend. I don't want to say that this is definitely how it happened, but it is a plausible scenario. Of course Hermes is an awful lot of parcels – but on the other hand I expect that most of the parcel is that going to Hermes hands are delivered successfully. We only get the bad stories on this forum. I can imagine that Hermes rate of successful deliveries is better than 97% because otherwise people wouldn't simply just hate them, they would go out of business.   We can help you bring a complaint against Hermes if you want. However, on the basis of what you say, the odds are stacked against you but it would be useful to try and find out the address which was associated with tracking number. As far as your apparent willingness to travel hundred and 50 miles to ask for your money back, don't bother. If you did actually go there, are you sure that the seller actually lives at the address that you have been given? What evidence do you have that? Of course if you found that the seller didn't reside at that address then it is slamdunk that you have been scammed. But then what are you going to do? You can try to inform the police but of course it won't get you anywhere. You can inform the sales website – but they will say that you brought it on yourself because you agreed to go off-site. You can inform PayPal – that they will say that because you sent the money which was calculated to avoid their fees, you have lost the protection. If you travelled the 150 miles and found that the seller did reside at that address, do you really think that they are going to hand your money over to you? If they are acting dishonestly then they will simply say that it is nothing to do with them, that they addressed it all correctly and they don't understand what has happened and that this is simply Hermes up to their old tricks. What are you going to do? You simply risk getting into a very nasty argument and depending on how bad it went, you might even find that the police are called and I'm afraid that they would be looking at you – not the seller. Maybe you can answer the questions that I've post above as to who it is who initiated the various ways of doing business.    
    • The legal campaign's going well then. The recount in Wisconsin gave Trump more votes but Biden even more, at a cost of $3m. And a donor to the organisation bringing the failed cases is suing to get his $2.5m back.   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/28/joe-biden-gains-votes-in-wisconsin-county-after-trump-ordered-recount
    • Yes Unicorn feed tax again, can't sue the keeper for more than the Original Charge, so any additional Debt Collection fees aka the £60 they add is abuse,iof process as per HHJ Harvey at Lewes county Court What lookedinfroinfo is indicating is that the main signage on entry and dotted around is merely an " Invitation to Treat", not the offer, the Offer and Acceptance occurs at the payment machine, so wording there is key.
  • Our picks

National Car Credit/Moneybarn - BMW car not fit for purpose


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 907 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

I had a thought last night and it is that if you put the car on the forecourt then symbolically it would be a much more assertive step. It would be rather in-their-face, unambiguous and they would know that they would have to deal with it. It would also divest yourself of a very large part of the problem.

 

This actually would be my recommended step – but if you do it, make sure you are very careful to photograph everything - and take a witness. A witness should simply – witness. Not get involved in any conversation or argument or recrimination or in any way involved. Don't forget, that taking a second person could be seen as provocative. You need somebody who simply watches and listens and stands back. As sexist as this might sound, a person of the female persuasion might be a good choice – not your wife.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, just to keep you updated. I have registered and opened an account on the MCOL website. I will drop into CAB later today and update you tonight. Quick question - do I add the company director as a defendant as well? I have parked the car and will ask the company to collect as it is a 3-hour drive from where I live. If they do not reply within 7 days I will drive the car down. I have photographed the car and made a video recording of the car. I will save this in case they try to claim that damage has occurred. I will draft the letters after visiting CAB and then post them on here for your perusal. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, just a company.

 

Make sure that you photograph the car when you leave it on the forecourt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, sorry for the delay but life and work caught up with me. I have copied copies of the letters below. Please let me know if this is acceptable or any changes you would recommend.

 

National Car Credit

280 Knutsford Rd

Warrington

WA4 1AZ

 

25 May 2018

 

Letter before Court Claim

 

To whom it may concern:

 

RE: BMW Reg:

 

Under Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act, it is an offence for anyone to sell a vehicle that is not roadworthy. This means that any vehicle you buy must be fit and safe to drive. It is also important to remember that an MOT certificate from a test several months ago is no guarantee that the vehicle is roadworthy.

The car sold to me was not roadworthy and did not have an MOT when the said car was sold. It also failed an MOT when I took it for an MOT. It would mean that you have committed an offence under Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act. Furthermore, I have raised a complaint with Trading standards.

I would, therefore, like you to settle all outstanding paid for work which you were informed of and which includes:

MOT and failure rectification - £180

Brakes and Drums - £400

Exhaust - £90

DSC - £400 quote

I expect a full refund of the above amounts, and if you do not agree, could you send me a detailed response including the MOT that would absolve you from the criminal offence you have committed.

If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 14 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue legal proceedings against you in the county court without further notice which may increase you liability for costs.

 

I look forward to your acknowledgement.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

Please find attached a copy of – MOT certificate and failure, copy of previous MOT’s and sales documents.

 

Letter to MB

 

MoneyBarn

The New Barn,

Bedford Rd,

Petersfield

GU32 3LJ

25 May 2018

 

Letter before Court Claim

 

To whom it may concern:

RE: B Reg: F

Under Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act, it is an offence for anyone to sell a vehicle that is not roadworthy. This means that any vehicle you buy must be fit and safe to drive. It is also important to remember that an MOT certificate from a test several months ago is no guarantee that the vehicle is roadworthy.

The car sold to me was not roadworthy and did not have an MOT when the said car was sold. It also failed an MOT when I took it for an MOT. It would mean that an offence was committed under Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act. Furthermore, I have raised a complaint with Trading Standards.

I am therefore expecting a full refund of all monies and interest paid thus far, and the cancelation of the car finance. If you do not agree, could you send me a detailed response of why you will not be honouring the above.

If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 14 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue legal proceedings against you in the county court without further notice which may increase you liability for costs.

 

I look forward to your acknowledgement.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

Please find attached a copy of – MOT certificate and failure, a copy of previous MOT’s and sales documents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi, sorry for the delay but life and work caught up with me. I have copied copies of the letters below. Please let me know if this is acceptable or any changes you would recommend.

 

 

 

National Car Credit

280 Knutsford Rd

Warrington

WA4 1AZ

 

25 May 2018

 

Letter before Court Claim

 

To whom it may concern:

 

RE: BMW Reg:

 

Under Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act, it is an offence for anyone to sell a vehicle that is not roadworthy. This means that any vehicle you buy must be fit and safe to drive. It is also important to remember that an MOT certificate from a test several months ago is no guarantee that the vehicle is roadworthy.

The car sold to me was not roadworthy and did not have an MOT when the said car was sold. It also failed an MOT when I took it for an MOT. It would mean that you have committed an offence under Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act. Furthermore, I have raised a complaint with Trading standards.

I would, therefore, like you to settle all outstanding paid for work which you were informed of and which includes:

MOT and failure rectification - £180

Brakes and Drums - £400

Exhaust - £90

DSC - £400 quote

I expect a full refund of the above amounts, and if you do not agree, could you send me a detailed response including the MOT that would absolve you from the criminal offence you have committed.

If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 14 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue legal proceedings against you in the county court without further notice which may increase you liability for costs.

 

I look forward to your acknowledgement.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

Please find attached a copy of – MOT certificate and failure, copy of previous MOT’s and sales documents.

 

Letter to MB

 

MoneyBarn

The New Barn,

Bedford Rd,

Petersfield

GU32 3LJ

25 May 2018

 

Letter before Court Claim

 

To whom it may concern:

RE: B Reg: F

Under Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act, it is an offence for anyone to sell a vehicle that is not roadworthy. This means that any vehicle you buy must be fit and safe to drive. It is also important to remember that an MOT certificate from a test several months ago is no guarantee that the vehicle is roadworthy.

The car sold to me was not roadworthy and did not have an MOT when the said car was sold. It also failed an MOT when I took it for an MOT. It would mean that an offence was committed under Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act. Furthermore, I have raised a complaint with Trading Standards.

I am therefore expecting a full refund of all monies and interest paid thus far, and the cancelation of the car finance. If you do not agree, could you send me a detailed response of why you will not be honouring the above.

If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 14 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue legal proceedings against you in the county court without further notice which may increase you liability for costs.

 

I look forward to your acknowledgement.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

Please find attached a copy of – MOT certificate and failure, a copy of previous MOT’s and sales documents.

 

To begin with, where did this business about absolving them from liability on a production of an MOT certificate come from? I don't think we discussed this at all and even in your own letter you have pointed out that the existence of an MOT does not render a vehicle roadworthy. Your letter is quite contradictory.

 

Also, I have no idea why you want to give them any kind of wiggle room.

 

 

 

On the XXX date you sold me a vehicle registration number XXX. The vehicle was an unroadworthy condition because an MOT inspection only a few days later revealed a number of defects including that the brakes were in a dangerous condition.

 

As I'm sure you know, it is an offence under section 75 of the Road Traffic Act to sell a vehicle in unroadworthy condition.

 

Accordingly I have informed trading standards and I have also begun a section 75A Consumer Credit Act procedure with the finance company to obtain a refund of my money.

 

In respect of your own liability, as you are fully aware you told me that there was a valid MOT certificate in force but it eventually transpired after I had purchased the vehicle that there was no MOT because it had expired a few days before I bought the vehicle.

 

As a result of these matters, I incurred expenses trying to make good some of the defects – as you were made fully aware.

 

I now intend to recover these expenses from you and require full reimbursement within 14 days or else I intend to sue you in the County Court and without any further notice.

 

Please find attached a list of the losses which I have incurred. Also you should understand that if there is any difficulty in obtaining reimbursement from the finance company, that I shall be being a court action for this sum as well separately.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Money barn

 

 

Request for refund of finance per section 75A Consumer Credit Act

 

On the XXX date you provided finance for the purchase of a vehicle registration number XXXX from National Car Credit. Credit agreement reference XXXX.

 

As I have already informed you, the vehicle was defective and it was in unroadworthy condition because the brakes were in dangerous condition and it failed its MOT within a very few days after the purchase.

 

You may be interested to know that before the purchase, National Car Credit assured me that there was a valid MOT certificate in force. In fact I eventually discovered that the MOT certificate had expired before the sale.

 

I'm now applying to you for a full reimbursement of the finance including any charges and interest in relation to the purchase of the vehicle.

 

I hope that this matter can go through smoothly and you will produce my reimbursement very quickly. However, in case there are any problems will you also please take this is my formal complaint so that if you are unable to provide me with the reimbursement within eight weeks, you will provide me with a final response and I can then begin proceedings with the ombudsman.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Road traffic act:lol::lol::lol:

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
Road traffic act:lol::lol::lol:

 

have I confused things? Can you just point out where please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only that surely the claim should be made under a cra claim the sec 75 is meat to that not the reason for the claim?

 

Also whats with all the pages long reply with quotes going on for everyonr??? Makes it rally hard to scroll through unnecessary page after page of repeats to see what each of you have actually posted!!

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

Actually I confess I'm not too sure. I imagine that the way to make an application for a refund under section 75 Consumer Credit Act was simply to make that claim and then state the facts. I wonder if there is some guidance somewhere.

 

Whatever, I'm quite sure the letter is good enough to get the claim started. Money barn realise what it's about and so will the FOS if it gets that far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have looked around a bit more. I notice that for regulated loan agreements – not credit card – that its section 75A section 75.

 

Also, you are entitled to recover exactly the same losses that you could recover under the Consumer Credit Act. This means that you could recover the credit and also any expenses reasonably incurred as a result of the contractual breach.

 

I'm sure that the letter I suggested above is perfectly adequate. Make sure that you refer to section 75 A. If you want you can add the extra losses – or you can add that later on if you want.

 

I would keep proceeding against national car credit simply for the ancillary losses at this point because that will keep it less than £10,000. I think you're definitely going to County Court on that one. With money barn, either they will see sense or you should go to the ombudsman and I expect the ombudsman will take your side.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
I have looked around a bit more. I notice that for regulated loan agreements – not credit card – that its section 75A section 75.

.

 

Please check the type of agreement you have. Motor finance is usually provided in the form of Hire Purchase or Conditional Sale agreements (PCP is also a type of HP agreement). These are NOT covered under Section 75 of the CCA which would make the above advice incorrect. You are protected by the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973. This link may help to explain the differences.

Edited by ReasonableRon
typo
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...