Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Vanquis CC, debits after account was 'closed'


Recommended Posts

Howdy,

I had a short lived credit card with Vanquis that I did not need.

I paid it off in full and called them and closed it with the person at the other end.

2 months later they started sending me messages about late payments,

I called them and to find out that the card had not been closed in error and 6 weeks after it should have been closed they paid a google debit of £560.

I hit the roof and made a formal complaint that took them well over a month to respond to.

They agreed they were at fault, refunded all late payments fees and offered me £100 in compensation.

However they said the debit amount stood as 'I had benefit from it' and I should get a refund from google.

I hit the roof again but they have stuck to their guns.

The debit from google is a genuine one but I wanted to dispute it with google and closed the card so they would have to engage with me.

But surely that's neither here nor there surely?

What is the next step?

Ombudsman takes forever doesn't it? 

thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, Micky the Hippo said:

I wanted to dispute it with google so closed the card so they would have to engage with me.

thats not the way to do it sorry.

sorry so what is your problem?

that vanquis paid the £560 or that they are now chasing it?
how old is this debt?

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

Posted (edited)

I closed the card and they told me it was closed, and agreed 2 months later when I complained that it should have been closed.

And they paid a debit 6 weeks after it should have been closed.

It's not about the Google debit, its about them telling me the card was closed, not closing it, then paying a debit and then telling me its valid and I owe it to them. How can that be right?

Edited by Micky the Hippo
Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry but it is ALL about the google debt which you state was legit and you owed it.

closing the vanquis card was not the way to 'force' google into communicating with you.

it is obv you knew the request to pay google £560 was going to be coming out, that's why you phoned vanquis to pay the card off and trying to close it to stop google getting their money.

that sadly backfired on you,

you have been compensated because vanquis failed to carryout your instructions.

IMHO you are very lucky you got that as they must have known the google request for payment was pending

can't see the FOS or anyone agreeing that vanquis have treated you unfairly here.

unless ive mis understood your explanation of what happened it's a dead duck.

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

Posted (edited)

Really? They told me it was closed, they agree to that. If they had closed the account like they said they had this would never have happened. Direct consequence of their mistake. What is the logic to this being OK?

They did not know it was pending, the Google debit was paid 6 weeks after the card was closed.

Edited by Micky the Hippo
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Micky the Hippo said:

The debit from google is a genuine one but I wanted to dispute it with google and closed the card so they would have to engage with me.

then the above comment must be wrong.

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

Eh? Google debited the card 6 weeks after I was assured the card was closed. If that the point you are questioning. Vanquis not closing the card was a simple error on the part of their person that I spoke to. They accept that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

does not matter.

you obviously knew the £560 sum was coming out - that's WHY you phoned to cancel the card??

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

So what, that's nothing to do with vanquis, I asked them to close the card. They said they had, and as a result of their error they paid something they should not have done.

It's not about morality surely?

Link to post
Share on other sites

no of course not morality doesnt come into any debt issue and never should.

but you already knew the google debit was going through when you asked to cancel the card, the payment process had already started, they had no other option under the consumer credit agreement that you and they signed and was still in force at that time but to honour the google payment .

this is reflected in the compensation they gave you, which only concerned the fact that they didn't cancel the agreement when you requested. 

Even if they had carried out your request the transaction would have still been honoured as it was pre cancellation.

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

4th time now .

thats totally immaterial.

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

Thank-you gor bring so gracious with your help, if you had explained the logic behind your argument in the first instance we would have got their quicker. Your reason is not the one that they used but hey.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you've been here longer than me and cant realise the obvious? 

in my very 1st post i told you that's the wrong way to go about it.

vanquis had no reason to explain to you why they allowed the payment, but they did:

On 16/04/2024 at 19:38, Micky the Hippo said:

However they said the debit amount stood as 'I had benefit from it' and I should get a refund from google.

covered by the consumer credit act.

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

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...