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
      • 162 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

Travelscribe v GE Money


Travelscribe
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6406 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

After a long slog I am almost back on the financial track. With credit rating that had improved just enough to get a sensible rate high street mortgage I am able to ditch my GE Money secured loan.

 

As you will all no doubt know, they want to charge me a an early redemption penalty of about £2k (exact amount is in the post apparantly with a breakdown.) As I am on the verge of victory against RBS (see me seperate thread - they just offered me a 75% settlement which I am about to decline) I am pretty well up on proceedure and will be sending the prelim letter in the next couple of days.

 

The statement arrived separetely this morning and I see a couple of late fee charges. As they come to only £80, I thought I would simply call them to see if they would refund them as the amount was not too huge. I am then told by a 'senior manager' that "we are not a bank, we are a finance house, so the OFT ruling does not apply to us and we can charge you anything that we put in to the contract you signed when you took out the loan" (which incidently was nt with GE Money, but 1st National as there is no way I would have gone with a company so nortoriously unethical as GE if I could have avoided it)

 

Now, I am 99% sure that that is b*ll*cks. But I do want to check. The fact that dozens of people on this forum are claiming and winning against GE Money seems to back this up. But does anyone have any thoughts and is there a seperate SAR letter template than the one you send to regular banks? They even confirmed to me that the fees were "Penalty Charges" (and therefore by definition, punative)

 

 

NEXT ISSUE.... INTEREST.....

please stay with me on this and if I have missed the point, not worked something out properly or am not making sense, then let me know.

 

The loan amount was for £37,500 taken out 2 and half years ago (the first 5 months required no payment) over 15 years. I have paid the best part of £8k off the loan and yet the amount showing as a balance is £36,782 (this does not include the £2k early redemption penalty which is on top of that amount) Now I appreciate that the compound interest on the outstanding amount is significant, but what does not make sense is that they show a variable rate of interest which has obviously risen in the last couple of years. Yet, my agreement was for a fixed amount and a fixed number of payments to repay the loan. So am I missing the point that they can't vary the amount of interest that they are now trying to charge me? Plus the fact that whatever way I try to work it, the payments of £8k made should have reduced the amount owed by more than just £718. It would appear - and do please correct me if I am wrong - that they have worked out the amount repayable at the begining of the agreement - which in this case was £64800, which is a interest profit amount of £27,300 or £1,820 a year. Over 2 years that is £3,640 of interest. Meaning that they have double the amount, but what I assume is front loading the way that the interest is charged. Is that also legal, or can I claim for this too?

It is just that I reclaimed a regular unsecured loan early a few years ago and the proportionate amount that I had paid off compare to this was vast. It worked out, if my memory serves me correctly, that the split in repayment and interest was about 50/50 so I had paid something like £2000 off the loan and the amount had reduced by about £1000. Make sense? So repaying £8k and only reducing by £700 seems wrong in every respect.

 

So the questions are:

1) Is there a specific letter template I can use to reclaim the ERC?

2) Is there a claim to be made regarding the amount of interest paid vs the amount of capital repaid? ie have GE Money acted unlawfully?

3) Is there a way of working out what the amount should actually be?

4) Am I talking/writting nonsense?

5) Anyone else fought this one?

 

 

Thanks for your help

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Travelscribe,

 

If you read the mortgage FAQs you will find links to the template letters for reclaiming the ERC.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/52020-mortgages-faq.html

 

With regard to the interest, it is likely that the fact that the you didnot have to make payments for five months would have affected the way interest accrued as interest would have been added with nothing being paid off the principal sum and therefore when you started payments most of this will go to paying off the interest rather than reducing the debt. If its a sub prime lender the interest rate will be high in any event. Its worth looking into the fact that the agreement states fixed interest yet they have been applying variable interest as this would be a clear breach of contract.

 

Hope this helps

 

 

Zoot

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...