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

BARGAIN CARS/Langley Cars plays the name change game and prevents serving a warrant of control

Recommended Posts

I was recently looking to purchase a car when I noticed a car in AUTO-TRADER that I liked being sold by BARGAIN CARS. I visited the dealership, met with the Managing Director, and agreed on a price of £1850, with an £850 deposit paid via bank transfer. The remaining £1000 was to be paid upon completion of works and passing the MOT by a certain date.

Two days later after leaving a deposit, I conducted a pre-purchase inspection and discovered severe faults rendering the car unsafe. Despite attempts to communicate their rejection of the car due to these faults, the seller did not respond. On the scheduled collection day, the seller admitted the car was still in the garage being repaired.

I demanded a full refund, citing breach of contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which mandates goods of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, and as described. I asserted that the faults discovered were beyond those declared at the time of deposit, making the car severely faulty and not as described. I also claimed consequential losses including travel expenses and inspection fees, totaling £181.10.

The dealer never paid up and it went to the small claims court where I won the case. 

In the aftermath of winning the case in the small claims court and obtaining an order for payment, the defendant failed to comply with the court's ruling. Consequently, I pursued a warrant of control to enforce the payment. However, complications arose when it was discovered that the dealership in fact was not registered as Bargain Cars, nor Langley Cars which the money was paid out to.

It was reported as fraud yet the banks decided it was a civil matter and therefore didn't chargeback the money into my account. I argued that the bank authorised the release of money to the account when in fact the account holder name was different. Its worth noting that the defendants bank also refused to disclose the defendants account name.

The bailiff has requested a variation of the warrant of control to reflect the business that's on the site otherwise executing the warrant of control and recovering the owed amount from the defendant will not be possible.

How can this happen and the banks refuse to accept responsibility and leave me with the loss?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to BARGAIN CARS plays the name change game and prevents serving a warrant of control
  • dx100uk changed the title to BARGAIN CARS/Langley Cars plays the name change game and prevents serving a warrant of control
Posted (edited)

Well banks don't recover bank transfers. 

You paid a bank sort code and account number. You authorised that payment and had full intention of doing so.

Thats why people always say pay by card. You have no recourse for a bank transfer that you intentionally made, even though things have gone bad.

You entered the sort code and account number, your bank paid that sort code and account number.

The baliffs should get a warrant variation very very quickly indeed and I see no reason they would struggle to enforce a second time.

Edited by jk2054

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow the link and read our advice about buying a used car

Make a list of how many mistakes you have made in buying your used car

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask why is it when I go to set up payment that the bank refuses to credit that person unless the name matches the account but in this case they didn’t take that into account?

How is it that the traders bank will not disclose the name even to my bank when there is a court order against him?

And finally,

I can’t locate a form that is for requesting a variation.

Besides I thought the name change would mean it couldn’t be served?

In company’s house there’s never been one where the car dealership name matched the address.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so did you sue the wrong company?

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.



Link to post
Share on other sites

After the dealer failed to refund the money I checked the sort code and account number to reveal which bank received the money. It turned out to be HSBC BUSINESS DIRECT ONLINE.

I called them and they confirmed the account name wasn’t Langley Cars though obviously didn’t tell me the correct account name. My bank contacted HSBC after I reported this to be fraud and they did in fact do a charge back but reversed the decision when the dealer sent a copy of the receipt he gave me for the deposit where it said it was non-refundable. I said that doesn’t mean anything when the car should never have been put on the forecourt when it was a death trap, and not fit for purpose.

The MOT revealed only a few of the faults which he agreed to correct in a week as I needed the car to travel out of London for work. He didn’t meet that deadline either because there were other more serious problems as identified by my independent car check. The same mechanic informed the dealer of these faults. The car wasn’t fixed by the agreed date due to the extensive repairs needed. So he was in breach of our contract on many levels. 

I requested the bank find out the correct name of the account and they said the only information they had was like you said was the account number and sort code. I challenged the bank stating that whenever I create a new payee if the name doesn’t match the registered account name, it declines the creation of the proposed payee. So what happened in this instance? 

I checked company’s house using the address from where the dealership is located and there was neither the two names, one was aa advertised in AUTOTRADER and the other on the courtyards entrance. I thought as I had made payment to the dealers ‘Trading as’ name that it would more than likely be enforceable than any other.

Indeed the Bailiff was the one to call me and say that a variation of the warrant of control needed to be done before he could go and enforce the order. I cross-checked the address on Companies House website and got 3 different business names. Only one appears to be car related. 

I am unsure as to what I can do within the variation of the warrant which the bailiff felt was appropriate. I will speak to him again Monday. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear CAG Team

Given the above, and not knowing what the actual account name is, I will haver to stick with that same name but the Bailiff said that once the variation is done there wont be an issue getting the money off him.

What i cannot get my head around is when i set up a new payee, if the name doesn't match the account name my bank wont allow the transfer.

So how is it that it authorised and allowed the transfer?

Also, given the dealer brake trading standard rules and tried to sell me a death trap,

then keep my deposit,

why is his bank and mine protecting him by not disclosing his account name or at least making a charge back as i first attempted?


Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...