Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi All,   Hoping for a little help and advice please.   This company Link Financial are chasing me for a debt that I had as a credit card with Royal Bank of Scotland. Out of the blue and having no correspondence from RBS a few year back this company claimed I now owed them the sum of money. I have written in response stating I do not acknowledge any debt to Link financial and asked them to supply evidence of liability. I also requested a true copy of the alleged agreement, a full statement of account, a signed true copy of assignment and any other documents referred to in the agreement. I also enclosed  a £1 payment for the credit agreement request and clearly stated that this £1 payment under no circumstances should be set aside for any alleged debt and if the documentation can't be supplied the fee should be returned.   Link's response was just a small statement of account with credit agreement number, account number (same as the RBS number), date of agreement and transaction sheet where they had taken the £1 fee off the debt value after I asked them not to. There was no true copy of assignment, true copy of alleged agreement or evidence of liability.   For reference, In 2009 my debts started to mount after my wife I had lost a child and we weren't at work for months, so ended up paying the mortgage on a credit card. Eventually it got too much and the RBS took me to county court in 2011 where I received a CCJ and then RBS was granted a charging order on my property which is in my name only. I was ordered to pay a monthly fee.    I received my first letter from Link in 2016 just stating, we have not written to you in some time as we have had to locate your address. We would like to discuss your intentions regarding the outstanding balance on  your account. I had no correspondence from RBS about this so I thought this was a scam company.  Unbeknown to me I also realised the monthly payment to the RBS had stopped being taken directly from my account.   After a few letters backwards and forwards about me disputing Link and this debt today 26th February 2021 I have now received another letter from Link stating. As you are aware a charging order on the beneficial interest you have in the property at.........has been secured. They are now seeking payment and will accept monthly payments on the account in accordance with my current financial situation. If I chose not to settle in full or fail to complete and return the form below or contact them within 7 days they will take further legal recovery action. There is a little boxed section at the bottom monthly or weekly payments for me to fill in and send off.   I'm really at my wits end now of what to do next. I have two years left on my mortgage and finding it really hard to get through that two year financially, especially since this pandemic has really hit home money wise. The last thing I need is the family home to be taken away especially with a 10 year old in the home.    I really appreciate any help and guidance. Thank you.    
    • OK lets pick out a few words in the ramble   Free energy?  Slavery?  Constructive manslaughter?  Weaponised energy of 5g Biowarfare Only wearing medical masks for criminal intent   Please may I suggest an extra layer of foil on the tin hat?    Oh and FYI there is no class action in the UK... 
    • i thought that was the point of mediation, to show them that you think they havent got a case to go to court with? I realise you know far more about this type of thing than i do though, but i thought that not fulfilling the CCA properly - ie by not supplying t&c - was an automatic fail at court for them.   I dont know what to do now -   @Andyorchcan i have your thoughts too please   the hassle just makes you feel like giving in to them
    • We believe this firm has been providing financial services or products in the UK without our authorisation. Find out why to be especially wary of dealing with this unauthorised firm and how to protect yourself from scammers. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • 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
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 622 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

Hi,

purchased a car from a large dealership 3 weeks ago today,

had the car serviced on today

 

it has come to light that I have been driving with 2 illegal rear Tyres.

I have spoken to the dealership and produced an invoice and covering letter with the required proof of Tyre depth etc

the dealership have now back tracked and said they only are responsible for electrical or mechanical faults not Tyres.

 

Any advice please would be great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

really .....they sold a car that was not road legal.?

so wheres the MOT they had done and the 151 point checks [most claim to do] results that prove they were legal.

 

 

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

MOT done in March said near the legal limit which is fine

I was going to replace the 2 anyway

but for the garage to find they were below the 1.6mm limit seems wrong on the dealership part.

 

I have given them both invoice and letter stating they were below the legal limit

they say they are only responsible for electrical and mechanical faults.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well no

what they are saying is they are not responsible for fair wear and tear I expect.

 

in 3 weeks how many miles have you done is p'haps the relevant issue. then?

 

they are not duty bound no if they WERE legal upon sale, though rather cheeky not to change them.

 

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

Less than 100 miles not enough miles or time to wear the Tyres enough according to the garage. I’m more angry I could have got up to a £5000 fine and 6 points, what would the dealership responsibilities be then? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only got the car 3 weeks ago, had the car serviced as it was coming up to the service date and was advised by the garage that the Tyres were illegal so I think it’s cut and dry really. The fact is I was allowed to drive a car off the forecourt with 2 bald tyres and I was told by dealer the car had been checked and surely Tyres should have been part of the check.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you drive? An F1 car....the point is they were bald when I purchased the car. I trust the garages judgment and experience and if they say they were illegal when I got the car then that’s good enough for me, after all driven less than 100 miles.....blimey you must have a heavy foot and over use the hand break to burn out 2 new Tyres in under an hour!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the dealer would have taken ownership of the car which would have had a current MOT at the time of purchase.Because they didn't carry out a fresh MOT(which I don't suppose they are required to)..they would have no requirement to check the tyres.Now if they sold the car to you and stated it had recently been serviced by themselves..that would be a different matter and they would be liable.

 

Possibly an oversight of the dealer..and subject to age and value of the car could have possibly pointed it out at the time of purchase and offered to part pay for replacements or in full subject to the value of vehicle.. 

 

just my opinion

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to upset you with blunt truth, but as said, maybe this is an oversight from the dealer and they didn't know the condition of the tyres. 

So if you were the dealer, would you trust someone after a week to say the tyres were illegal at point of sale?

Sorry to say, but even the most clueless car buyer looks at the tyres (tyre kickers springs to mind).

However,  as you paid 13k for the car, the dealer might just give you 2 new tyres and forget about it. (But I would be surprised)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dragonfly29 said:

Thanks Andy, sound thinking but still bloody frustrating after spending 13k with them now arguing over £170 bill for Tyres.

But you said in Post#3 that you were going to replace them anyway?  It seems that you bought the car knowing that they were 'near' the legal limit and clearly had made a mental note that this bill was therefore imminent.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dragonfly29 said:

Thanks Andy, sound thinking but still bloody frustrating after spending 13k with them now arguing over £170 bill for Tyres.

 

 

It is when you spent that much......I had a very similar experience...mine went back to the dealer for its first MOT (7 months after Purchase) and it failed on a brake caliper.The dealer replaced the caliper and stated that because i had only had the car several months it was free of charge and should have been picked up previously.

 

How long they had the vehicle up to selling me unknown and if they had done a pre sale service is also unknown ..suppose its down to the Dealer and service reputation

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ReasonableRon said:

But you said in Post#3 that you were going to replace them anyway?  It seems that you bought the car knowing that they were 'near' the legal limit and clearly had made a mental note that this bill was therefore imminent.  

Yes Ron, I did know that in the MOT it said near the limit and yes I was going to replace but........as I keep saying the garage that did the service said there was no way that in 2 weeks and 2 days to be precise and not being driven for around 90 miles could they possible so far under the legal limit. When you buy a car and keep it in good mechanical order yes you know that bills are “imminent” but not when it should have been picked up by the dealership if they had done all the checks that they said they did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, king12345 said:

Sorry to upset you with blunt truth, but as said, maybe this is an oversight from the dealer and they didn't know the condition of the tyres. 

So if you were the dealer, would you trust someone after a week to say the tyres were illegal at point of sale?

Sorry to say, but even the most clueless car buyer looks at the tyres (tyre kickers springs to mind).

However,  as you paid 13k for the car, the dealer might just give you 2 new tyres and forget about it. (But I would be surprised)

Considering the wear was on the inside tyre wall and not having a ramp or lift in my back pocket I unfortunately did not want to crawl under a car in a showroom. By the way no tyre kicker here, I did my research on the car I wanted and price I wanted to pay, found a dealer with good customer feedback and took the car for a test drive. All I did wrong was trust a car dealership and as you say maybe if they valued a customer they would offer to pay for the tyres, but I suppose we can put dealerships in the same boat as estate agents....blunt truth!

Link to post
Share on other sites

problem with tyres is that you are responsible for their condition the moment you get on to the public highway.

Sorry to say that dealership cant be held responsible for them now, if you had spotted they were illegal the moment you went to dive off then not only would they have to replace they woudl likely be prosecuted for selling an unroadworthy vehicle rather than just having to swallow a small added expense.

you know what you can do- leave appropriate comment on all social media and review sites.

you might get an offer os new tyres then

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused here. One comment says tread below 1.6 mm and other comment says fault is on inner side wall---which is it??

Also, any half decent dealer should not be selling a 13K car with tyres remotely near end of life.

Had I seen an MOT advisory prior to purchase, it would have been a condition of sale that advisories be rectified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. 

 

What was the mileage recorded on the MOT & what was the mileage on your purchased invoice. 

 

One MOT tester might advise at their discretion, another might fail a car. It depends on their stats.

 

Tyres will fail if they are presented as dangerous on that day and that day only. 

 

When tyres are low on tread they can wear out very very quickly, just as KING has advised you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...