Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks jk2054 - email now sent to OCMC requesting an in person hearing.
    • You can easily argue your case with no sign on the nearest parking sign
    • Same issue got a fine yesterday for parking in suspended bay which was ending at 6:30 yesterday, next thing I see a fine 15 minutes before it. The sign was obstructed 
    • Hi all, an update on the case as the deadline for filing the WS is tomorrow i.e., 14 days before the hearing date: 7th June. Evri have emailed their WS today to the court and to myself. Attached pdf of their WS - I have redacted personal information and left any redactions/highlights by Evri. In the main: The WS is signed by George Wood. Evri have stated the claim value that I am seeking to recover is £931.79 including £70 court fees, and am putting me to strict proof as to the value of the claim. Evri's have accepted that the parcel is lost but there is no contract between Evri and myself, and that the contract is with myself and Packlink They have provided a copy of the eBay Powered By Packlink Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) to support their argument the contractual relationship is between myself and Packlink, highlighting clause 3a, e, g of these T&Cs. They further highlight clause 14 of the T&Cs which states that Packlink's liability is limited to £25 unless enhanced compensation has been chosen. They have contacted Packlink who informed them that I had been in contact with Packlink and raised a claim with Packlink and the claim had been paid accordingly i.e., £25 in line with the T&Cs and the compensated postage costs of £4.82. They believe this is clear evidence that my contract is with Packlink and should therefore cease the claim against Evri. Evri also cite Clause 23 of the pre-exiting commercial agreement between the Defendant and Packlink, which states:  ‘Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 A person who is not a party to this Agreement shall have no rights under the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Act 1999 to rely upon or enforce any term of this Agreement provided that this does not affect any right or remedy of the third party which exists or is available apart from that Act.’ This means that the Claimant cannot enforce third party rights under the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and instead should cease this claim and raise a dispute with the correct party.   Having read Evri's WS and considered the main points above, I have made these observations: Evri have not seen/read my WS (sent by post and by email) as they would have recognised the claim value is over £1000 as it includes court fees, trial fees, postage costs and interests, and there is a complete breakdown of the different costs and evidence. Evri accepts the parcel is lost after it entered their delivery network - again, this is in my WS and is not an issue in dispute. Evri mentions the £25 and £4.82 paid by Packlink - Again, had they read the WS, they would have realised this is not an issue in dispute. Furthermore to the eBay Powered By Packlink T&Cs that Evri is referring to, Clauses 3b and c of the T&Cs states:  (b)   Packlink is a package dispatch search engine that acts as an intermediary between its Users and Transport Agencies. Through the Website, Users can check the prices that different Transport Agencies offer for shipments and contract with the Transport Agency that best suits their needs on-line. (c)  Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency   This supports the view that once a user (i.e, myself) selects a transport agency (i.e Evri) that best suits the user's needs, the user (i.e, myself) enters into a contract with the chosen transport agency (i.e, myself). Therefore, under the T&Cs, there is a contract between myself and Evri. Evri cites their pre-existing agreement with Packlink and that I cannot enforce 3rd party rights under the 1999 Act. Evri has not provided a copy of this contract, and furthermore, my point above explains that the T&Cs clearly explains I have entered into a contract when i chose Evri to deliver my parcel.  As explained in my WS, i am the non-gratuitous beneficiary as my payment for Evri's delivery service through Packlink is the sole reason for the principal contract coming into existence. Clearly Evri have not read by WS as the above is all clearly explained in there.   I am going to respond to Evri's email by stating that I have already sent my WS to them by post/email and attach the email that sent on the weekend to them containing my WS. However, before i do that, If there is anything additional I should further add to the email, please do let me know. Thanks. Evri Witness Statement Redacted v1 compressed.pdf
    • Thank you. I will get on to the SAR request. I am not sure now who the DCA are - I have a feeling it might be the ACI group but will try to pull back the letter they wrote from her to see and update with that once I have it. She queried it initially with 118 118 when she received the default notice I think. Thanks again - your help and support is much appreciated and I will talk to her about stopping her payments at the weekend.
  • 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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Close Brothers motor finance section 75


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1421 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

Hello to all and i apologies if I am breaching any forum rules, any help or advice is greatly received.

 

I traded in my car almost a year ago and purchased a second hand kia optima 2013 with around 75000 on the clock, and 127 a month in HP payments.

 

After 5 and a half months of normal use the engine seized,

the reverse camera and sensors no longer worked

and the passenger seat belt alarm continuously sounds at various times when no one is seated in it.

I had also needed to renew pads and a brake calliper almost 4 months after purchase.

I had not raised concerns to the brake components as they would be considered wear and tear.  

 

Being in the industry I dropped the oil and found it to be extremely thick and probably not circulating to the top of the engine, i.e. the oil had not been renewed in a very long time (there is no oil light on the dash or any indication of fault or maintenance due)

 

I retained the oil filter, and opened a resolver case, with all the faults listed.

Upon contacting the dealer and informing him of what happened he indicated he wanted no responsibility towards rectifying the problem as close brothers were technically the owner.

 

I approached close brothers (18th February)who started the ball rolling and approached dealer again who formally by letter refused liability.

Close brothers sent an engineer to inspect my listed problems, which was all visual as the vehicle will not move

 

after three weeks the report was with my case handler at close brothers.

I requested this report twice but have not seen it.

Close brothers informed me that the report was inconclusive and they would need to move to a more through inspection.

 

At this stage the pandemic hit,

at no point did I stop work and had to continue on charity and the diminished public transport to commute to work (140 miles a week) as no courtesy car or rental was provided. 

 

I maintained contact with close brothers throughout the lockdown,

and was given the same update,

they were waiting for the engineering firm to do an assessment but they were only doing key workers.

Despite me telling them I was a key worker nothing was done until the easing of the lockdown.

 

I was informed that ACE vehicle inspection would contact me to collect the oil filter. 

This happened on the 18th of June and I phoned each week to chase.

I was informed on the 30th that the report was showing as on the portal and my case handler (simon) would look at it and call me back.

I received no call and called on the 1st with the same responses.

 

Today (2nd July) I got Simon who tells me that the report is showing on the portal but when he went to open it, it was not there and he would chase the engineering firm and get back to me in a couple of hours. 

 

 I believe I am being taken for a mug now and am unsure whether I should escalate my revolver case to the regulator or any other advice,

I'm therefore at this forums mercy

any advice will be greatly received. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • AndyOrch changed the title to Close Brothers motor finance section 75

post 1 spaced thread tidied.

 

what has this got to do with section 75 please?

 

you indicate some of the faults came about within 6mts

and the finance company were informed and have carried out their inspection but you can't access it.

 

so the car has been off the road and useless since when?

 

it's close brothers responsibility to repair the car yes.

are you still paying for it?

 

 

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

Hi and thanks for your reply,

 

yes I am still paying the monthly hp agreement.

yes the car has not turned a wheel since February the 14th.

 

I have asked to return the car under the section 75 consumer act as I  had the vehicle under six months, when the faults occurred. My understanding is this process must be followed to determine blame?

 

The first inspection was inconclusive and I haven't seen the report or had access to it, even after asking. 

 

the second report was for the oil filter which apparently we are still waiting on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not sure but i think section 75 is for reclaiming paid sums under an agreement whereby you don't think they were taken legally under the CCA for whatever reason or for where an item was paid for via a credit card which is faulty or not upto a required std and the retailer is ignoring you......, i'm not sure if it applies to HP agreements, but only credit cards.??

 

were there any faults you reported within 30days..

as outside of the above but within 6ths the retailer is entitled to do inspections etc and decide themselves the route they can take, you can't force the cancellation of the whole deal.

 

 

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

sorry i asked if any faults were reported within 30days?

if no.

yes you have to await the process to run itself through.

 

so..what did you mean by section 75, ...

what are you thinking?

 

dx

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...