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
      • 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

Absolutely Desperate for HELP!!


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6393 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

The Yorkshire Bank is claiming against a second charge on our house and we are 2 weeks away from a completion date. The ONLY proof that they are giving as to the amount of the second charge is a copy of a spreadsheet which they have duly filled in. When they were asked to give a breakdown they sent the same spreadsheet back.

 

I wrote for all their info on us and our accounts under the Data Protection Act using the form provided by this site and they came back with the reply that because the accounts were pre year 2000 they had no info and didn't have to supply any anyhow!! and they would return the £10.

I phoned to state the obvious (they needed info to substantiate their claim) - still nothing and they are now outside the 40 days

 

They say that they are willing to make a final settlement at £60K (the alternative is a figure calculated at 4% over base and the latest figure was about £64,700 in November 2006

 

We are not well off, the selling price of our home is £158K

and there is the mortgage to pay off also (around £59K) plus others to settle.

 

The rest of this story is posted under the Yorkshire/Clydesdale bank heading "Second charge on our Home"

Link to post
Share on other sites

This shouldn't cause you a problem in selling your home as planned - as it's not an inhibition to prevent sale, simply that they want a cut of the proceeds, and have registered this charge with the Land Registry.

 

Are you disputing the amount, the fact they've taken a 2nd charge (when did they do this?) or the fact the debt ever existed?

 

If you can contact the Land Registry, you'll get the full details ofd the Charge, however as this is the last step AFTER court action, you must have recieved documentation from the courts before this, and service of the charge by bailiffs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...also I feel there must be a duty on their part to disclose at least the court details and case number where the charge was ordered. I would think that they would be required to disclose all the details of the charge to you, otherwise what is their authority for it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comments. I appreciate your time. In essence, the bank has so far avoided coming up with start amounts, contractual terms, or anything that would allow us to pin them down. Essentially, and in the relatively short term, they have assumed the position that they could in fact come up with any figure that they so desire and say that they wanted that amount to allow the sale go through. If we don't comply they then come up with another figure off their spreadsheet, wherein they apply interest charges up to January, add management fees for 10 years and Bob's your uncle we wouldn't get a bean from the proceeds.

 

Incidentally, at their 4% over base that they have applied from 1997 is neither documented (to our knowledge) nor in our opinion legal because it is a rate that is faster than the current increase in house prices in our area and is likely to remain that way for some time to come - hence thay are effectively forcing us to sell.

 

Anyhow this is where the Data Protection Act could be beneficial in quite a major way. The Yorkshire Bank have not complied with my request under the Act so we are considering taking up their derisory offer, and then suing them under the terms of the Data Protection Act on the basis that because they refused to hand over the information as requested, we have never been in a position to do ANYTHING ELSE. They have effectively tied us to the ropes and used us as a punch bag!

 

Do you reckon I could get a little publicity for this one??

 

We are instructing our conveyancing solicitors today to accept the settlement figure of £60K (as full and final settlement) on this basis - so we will then be totally reliant on the their non compliance under the Data Protection Act to take this further. This could be a major test for the Act as it clearly states that we are allowed to access any information that an organisation has on us, or has had on us SINCE the year 2000!! This one is obviously not about day to day unfair bank charges but something a little more complex. This information has been imperative to be in our possession in order for us to able to handle this matter in any other way (I think?)

 

Geoff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be careful - accepting their 'derisory offer' could be your undoing. Most financial institutions require any offer to be accepted by you under non-disclosure (you cannot tell anyone about it) and in full and final settlement, so once they pay, any further action contemplated by you would be barred due to your earlier acceptance.

 

You can certainly advise that any amount offered to you will be accepted at an initial payment to account, and a final figure for the total amount calculated to be owed to you (less the interim payment) will be provided shortly.

 

Any breaches of the DPA don't really benefit you, as it is the Commissioner who enforces this, and you would not be a party to any sanctions (but you do get a warm glow!). If you accept the £60k as F&F, that will be an end to the litigation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be careful - accepting their 'derisory offer' could be your undoing. Most financial institutions require any offer to be accepted by you under non-disclosure (you cannot tell anyone about it) and in full and final settlement, so once they pay, any further action contemplated by you would be barred due to your earlier acceptance.

 

You can certainly advise that any amount offered to you will be accepted at an initial payment to account, and a final figure for the total amount calculated to be owed to you (less the interim payment) will be provided shortly.

 

Any breaches of the Data Protection Act don't really benefit you, as it is the Commissioner who enforces this, and you would not be a party to any sanctions (but you do get a warm glow!). If you accept the £60k as F&F, that will be an end to the litigation.

 

I appreciate what you say but on the grounds that we were left with no option I beliieve that the courts would listen for we could do nothing else. I f I have learnt anything about the courts it is that they do actually play things by ear if they have to sound reasonable. A little help from the press would help - that is why I mentioned it. I am not the type to go to the press at the drop of a hat If you look at the detail you will see that they really have forced us up a gum tree with nowhere to go. With a little (probably a lot) of help from you guys I could get this going. There are some major issues here, and some that help a large number of people. If just for that reason it would be worthwhile.

 

Geoff

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe any court would happily overturn a F&F settlements because you later asserted you had 'no option'. IN the likely event that it did, it would be appealed by the Bank and so far I'm unaware of any court decision that a F&F agreement could be set aside for those reasons. I agree that if you are reasonable, the court will be sympathetic, but if the agreement you reach is no publicity and F&F, you will be painting yourself into a corner that might be hard to get out of. Good luck anyway!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buzby....

Thanks for that and I appreciate your concern. I have already put in hand the first moves towards publicity. I am currently making the info (as in these posts) available, that is without any further effort on my part. I'll keep ypu posted, and its a dodgy game to play but one I (we) am willing to play. (although without possible further financial gain)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Publicity can be beneficial to the negotiations, especially if you've not formally settled and you can't be accused of breaking the settlement arrangement. So if the firm is held up to ridicule and/or contempt, they only buy your silence once you agree.... :D

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Accepting under duress I don't believe will be an option - they simply wouldn't allow the sale to go through? Surely this is how they would play it _ I honestly cannot see a door open to us - like I see it I can only rely on the fairness of the courts - but what angle are they going to accept, after all, you can get tried for murder twice now!! why not 2nd charges :-}

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see that working, as that approach makes the F&F settlement as conditional, and they'll probably not proceed to releasing the funds. If the OP plans to retain any rights in the matter, there's nothing to stop the bank from refusing to proceed. Since it appears receiving the funds is a high priority, it would be a shame to lose it all on brinkmanship, wouldn't you agree?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...