Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • That isn’t actually what the Theft Act 1968 S1 actually says, BTW. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1 (1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;   The difference between what you’ve said and the Act? a) intent to permanently deprive rather than  just depriving (which is why the offence of “taking without consent” was brought in for motor vehicles, as otherwise "joyriders" could say "but I intended to give it back at the end") b) dishonesty : If I honestly believed A's pen belonged to B, and took it and gave it to B - B might be found guilty of theft but I shouldn't be. 
    • Received a call and follow on confirmation email from the police about my cabinets! They wanted to confirm that I was prepared to support police action for the matter and that I would be happy to provide a statement and attend court at a later date!!! I think that something might actually get done - it won't get my cabinets back I know that but hopefully it will put a stop to this so called courier doing this to people!
    • Around a month ago I had to send a sympathy card to a friend in GB. Logistically it made sense to buy a personalised one on eBay and get it sent straight to my mate, rather than faffing around getting it sent to me.  This mighty purchase set me back all of £3.05 (including postage costs). I was taken aback that, when it was sent, I got a tracking number.  For a flippin' three-quid card!  I had no idea that technology had moved on so much and that tracking was so easy.  The shop has feedback for 16,300 purchases so tracking must be easy & automatic. It's unlikely your case will get to court, but in cases that do this got me thinking that we need to aggressively challenge the PPCs where they have lied about the timescales of sending their rubbish and have no proof at all of posting - when it would be so easy to provide it.
    • Thanks for uploading the appeal.  It was a waste of time but well done in not outing the driver. Why have your friends paid £60 they don't owe to a cowboy private company that have no means of making them pay as they don't do court?  If they paid by card, as I presume they did, they should get on to their bank and do a chargeback immediately. We call the £70 the Unicorn Food Tax.  The law specifically states they are only allowed to charge the original £100 but the PPCs and their bezzies in their trade associations allow this made-up extra £70 so £100 becomes £170.  Unfortunately for them the law doesn't. Anyway, snotty letter time. There is an example in post 32 here you can tweak as it's the same company but a different car park   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/463964-alliance-anpr-pcn-lease-car-appeals-refused-daymer-bay-cornwall/page/2/#comments  
  • 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 1411 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...