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 
        • 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

Receivers appointed and are asking me to remove my belongings from the property - residential property


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2190 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

I defaulted on a bridging loan and Receivers have been appointed. They have secured the property (changed the locks) and have asked me to book a time to remove my belongings (Torts Notice served).

 

The property was and is my home and my only home but I have not lived there since taking out the bridging loan is because the loan was unregulated and I did not want to be in breach of the terms. However, it was never rented out; in fact, I never removed my belongings from the property.

 

I have never desired to be landlord and the only reason for taking out the loan was to keep my home. This was declared to the lender from the very beginning; nonetheless, the product offered to me was an unregulated loan. As I was not eligible for a mortgage at the time and it was very unlikely that I would be by the end of the loan term, sale was my only option of exit strategy. This was a better option than having the property repossessed.

 

The Receivers have said I must either remove my belongings or pay for storage. I have not abandoned my belongings or “left them behind”. I am in the process of remortgaging and they are aware of this, as I have kept them informed. The mortgage has been agreed subject to valuation which is due tomorrow. Can they force me to empty the property?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Your being forced into bankruptcy if the recievers are in and changed the locks.

Bridging loans are always secured in property as they "bridge" between mortgages.

Its of no concern that you never let the property.

You say you were not eligible for a mortgage but you took the bridging loan out to stop a repossession but are now re-mortgaging.

I think you were in financial difficulty and obviously used this to be a stop gap but defaulted.

The loan was not unregulated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Yes. Your being forced into bankruptcy if the recievers are in and changed the locks.

Bridging loans are always secured in property as they "bridge" between mortgages.

Its of no concern that you never let the property.

You say you were not eligible for a mortgage but you took the bridging loan out to stop a repossession but are now re-mortgaging.

I think you were in financial difficulty and obviously used this to be a stop gap but defaulted.

The loan was not unregulated.

 

 

Thanks for the response. You have answered my question as to whether or not they can force me to empty the property. However, in response to your comments

 

 

  1. This has nothing to do with bankruptcy. They have not presented a bankruptcy petition to the courts and there is no reason for them to. They will simply sell the property to recover what I owe.
  2. I "was" in financial difficulty. I experienced a setback from which I have since recovered, and as you have said, used the bridge as a stop gap.
  3. The bridging loan I got was definitely unregulated. I know the difference.

 

Anyway, the Receivers confirmed in writing that the reason they wanted my belongings removed was so as not to void their insurance and not for any other reason. They said they could give me some time but I can't leave them indefinitely and asked for timescales wrt remortgaging. Valuation has gone to the lender, solicitors have been instructed and the Receivers are no longer putting pressure on me to remove my things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...