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

Default recieved for not paying charges that were applied in error!


skyap
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6351 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 have posted on this topic here, but I thought I would start this new thread as it seemed more appropriate.

 

Long story short, I left Telewest, thus ending my contract early, but I moved to an NTL region and so signed up with them to avoid any end-of-contract charges. Telewest charged me £229 and asked for the money. I cancelled my direct debit and never paid them but phoned on numerous occasions to have the charges removed. I got them removed and thought everything was fine.

 

Later this year, I applied for my first mortgage. It was declined. I put it down to other factors, like the fact I had recently changed jobs and moved house. A few months later, I applied for a personal loan in an attempt to sort out my creditcard debt, it was also declined.

 

It turns out on my credit file there is an entry against Telewest staing £229 that has settled on x date but it was still flagged as a default (it had a red 8 on the experian online report).

 

I found a thread here explaining how to get a default removed, but my default should never have been applied in the first place. Can I use this same letter to get it removed? I want the entry deleted in its entirety as it should never have been there in the first place. At the same time I would like some compensation as being declined for life changing events has been stressful and has taken a while to discover it was all due to an error on their part.

 

Any advice? Can I claim compensation and is the letter in the sticky thread suitable for my situation? I feel my situation is different as I should never have had the debt, let alone the default, against me.

 

TIA

Link to post
Share on other sites

good morning.

 

I think I'm right in saying that telewest/ntl (as utilities suppliers) are not covered by the consumer credit act. This means any inaccurate or unfair default notices must be challenged via the data protection act.

 

Things to do:-

 

1) find out what these charges were for and wether they are legitimate

2) Can you get NTL/telewest to agree that this information is inaccurate by polite means?

3) if not, can you prove the information is 'inaccurate' ? if you can then you issue a notice under section 14 DPA

4) if the information is accurate (to any reasonable degree) then a notice under section 10 - the right to prevent data processing likely to cause damage or distress is for you.

 

The default removal world is far from straightforward and every case is differenct.

 

In your case, it depends on what NTL/Telewest think about this data which will determine your most likely route for success

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dayglo, thanks for the reply.

 

 

In answer to your points:

1) As far as I can remember there were two charges applied, both were for ending my contract with Telewest early. I can double check this later. As I opened a new account with NTL, these charges should have been waived.

 

2) I haven't had anything in writing (despite asking them to do so) to say the charges were in error but I have had them removed from the account so the account is now settled. This was done via telephone conversations although I did send a letter, the Royal Mail don't have proof of delivery (it was sent Recorded)

 

3) How do I prove the info was inaccurate?

 

The default removal world is far from straightforward and every case is different.

 

Is there somewhere I should go for one on one advice? Could Citizen's Advice help?

 

Thanks for your help so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...