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 
      • 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

Judge to decide on contractual interest


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6401 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

Hi everyone.

 

I entered a claim through MCOL, which the Halifax acknowledged but did not defend. They credited my account with the bank charges plus 8%, however the claim was for bank charges plus 29.8% compounded. This being what they charge me when I take their money without authorisation.

Judgement was entered by default for the full amount. The Halifax have asked for the judgement to be set aside, so it's been referred to a district judge to decide whether or not I am entitled to claim the contractual rate.

 

Of course the Halifax haven't had the courtesy to return my phone calls or reply to my letters, and I only found out what was going on by calling the MCOL help desk!

 

I haven't seen the detail of the Halifax's defence but the decision could have quite an impact.

Has anyone else experienced this, or know any contractual interest cases put before a judge?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How much is your claim for, including the interest?

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have the exact figures to hand. The full claim was for about £3k. I have received about £1600. The remainder is the contractual interest element which is being disputed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks GaryH.

I received an identical defence for my credit card claim, which is ongoing. The interest they are defending amounts to about £70. I'm not quite sure how they square this with their claim that they will refund £350 charges on a purely financial basis as it cost too much to defend.

I filled in the allocation questionnaire over a month ago and am waiting for a response.

There is a slight difference in my current account claim in that judgement has already been entered against the Halifax by default.

I have no idea what the procedural differences are or if the fact they failed to submit a defence to the initial claim will have any bearing on the judges decision - only time will tell I suppose.

There is no denying that there is an express interest rate stated in the contract and the Halifax do not appear to have submitted any argument at all against the payment of the contractual rate, it looks like they are simply to be asking for it to be struck out because they don’t like it! - The playground bully seems to be having a tantrum!

Good luck with your claim GaryH. "What's sauce for the goose........"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...