Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • An update! I emailed both Andrzej.Tuleja and James_Goldsmith at Whirlpool dot com. I got a phone call from their executive team a couple of days later, and a replacement part dropped on the mat a week after. She was quite apologetic, however, also reiterated the "90 day warranty" period on customer fitted parts, and did not comment when I mentioned that the CRA also applies as I was a consumer buying from them directly. So I now have a spare door switch if the machine decides to eat another in the future! Cheers all!   Note dx100 that the "Hotpoint CEO" you linked to is not related to the hotpoint appliances, but some kind of marketing app.
    • yep, throw that morality card out the window....9/10 you never owe a DCA ANYTHING!! they are NOT BAILIFFS!!
    • (See the link to DVLA’s INF188/6 document I posted above, page 4 as cited) “I have a new medical condition that I have told the DVLA about on my recent application. Can I drive? As soon as the DVLA receives your correct and complete application for a new licence and as long as you meet all the Section 88 criteria, you may drive. It is important that you are satisfied that the medical condition you have declared on your application does not stop you from driving. If you are unsure, check with your doctor or healthcare professional before you make a decision. You can also look up your condition in the ‘Assessing fitness to drive’ guide, which you can find at www.gov.uk/dvla/fitnesstodrive to see whether you meet the medical standards for driving. As this guide is intended for healthcare professionals, it can be complicated. Your doctor or healthcare professional should be able to help you if necessary." It seems that DVLA think that S.88 does apply for applications disclosing a new medical condition after all. Why might this be so, and what of “qualifying application" and "relevant disability"? S. 92(1) imposes on the driver a requirement to disclose a relevant disability. S.92(3) requires the Secretary of State to refuse such an application disclosing a relevant disability ….. EXCEPT S.92(4) requires the Secretary of State to grant such an application if the relevant disability is “adequately controlled”. Hence my belief S.88 can apply for medical conditions (if the driver meets the medical standard of fitness to drive) as the application remains a qualifying application IF the driver meets the medical standard of fitness to drive, until DVLA (on behalf of the Secretary of State) say it doesn’t, provided the driver believes they meet the (medical) standard. Additionally, at (or before) June 2013 (as noted in my previous post) the medical standard for fitness to drive for conditions involving excessive daytime sleepiness was changed from “completely controlled” to "adequately controlled".  
    • CFO Bill Guan allegedly led a team at the news outlet that was behind a global money laundering scheme.View the full article
    • Anyway, I've asked my Booking.com flat-rent-out-bloke what needs to be done on the Booking.com portal to cancel a reservation. I got a late message "I'll let you know tomorrow".
  • 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

the funding corp worst company ever!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4101 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

  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi.what l am saying is with the bos being void stephenson have had a look at the hp what came with the car there,s little fault with it .so for us to volentry hand back the car to tfc we would have to get another car with my husbond working nights 40 miles there and back and with our credit score there no chance. we love to get rid tfc and have,ing already paid them over £10,000 still 18mths to go before we pay it off a car which was £5000what we paid for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the BoS which, is an essential part of the documentation, is defective that poisons any other document which emanates from it. In other words the whole deal is kaput

 

What did Stephensons say about that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Joncris.l did ask stepenson about this when you mention,ed it in one of your last posts. and they said it dose sometimes but there,s not alot of faults with the hp agreement so they can,t go down that path .

Link to post
Share on other sites

a bill of sale and cca agreement are linked

the consensus is that if the bos is invalid it reverts back to the credit agreement

 

i know this is not the case

if one is invalid, both are crap

 

ill let john chriss take over for a while on this

better have two opinions than one

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillian Lavelle ha also taken over my case. I haven't has a progress report on my case for several weeks. The last i heard was that my credit agreement had been passed to a Barrister.

Edited by drob
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi gillypam..... I haven't heard anything since the agreement was passed to a barrister. I can only presume that it has been passed to a barrister for an opinion as to the validity of the agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an independant person (Solicitor) look at my Credit Agreement & BOS aswell as Stephensons. In his opinion he thinks that the invalid BOS does not make the Credit Agreement unenforceable.

 

Personally i question this as the BOS does make reference to the Credit Agreement in the terms & conditions. Also if the PPI has been misold then this will surely question the validity of the credit agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When my agreement was sent to the Barister by Mark Bowden, it took 5 weeks from when he received it for me to get a copy of what he said.

 

One thing i was miffed about, is that i weren't even told MB had left.

I hope Gillian Lavelle is up to date

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all. l got told a week before he was leaving gillian lavelle must have taken all tfc cases .glad we did,nt have a ppi it makes you wonder if we can do something about tfc or are they going to get away with bos been void and credit agreement been valid?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi GillyPam I am having the same problems as you I have found out the BOS with TFC is void and they have failed to take the car because I told them it was illegal. I have had the agreement looked at by Stephensons and they say its above board.Surely a company that gets you to sign documents that are illegal should not get away with it and it should effect the credit agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi larlieboy1 so stephensons have said its above board so what are they going to do have they said .quite alot of people are saying that if the bos is void it posoins the credit agreement you wont to ask stephensons about this.it stinks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...