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

pokerbot vs capital 1


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6390 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

hi there, this is my first post and like most people on here i could do with some help. I have read through a lot of threads, and think i have a moderate understanding of whats going on!! basically i had an account with capital 1 and have been getting stung by there charges. my account went into default and i was told that the account had been closed and passed over to Intrum justita. they have been sending letters and calling saying how i needed to pay off the debt, and how they were going to take matters further. So after much reading i sent off the cca request to them on the 9th of jan. the £1 cheque was cashed on the 12th. they have sent me letters requesting i pay them since then, and then today i got this letter from them;

 

"Thank you for your recent communication dated 9th January 2007. Unfortunately we are unable to provide you with the information that you have requested and in light of the information contained in your letter, I can confirm that the above account has been returned to Capital One and that you will receive no further telephone calls or correspondence from Intrum Justitia in relation to this account. Any further enquires you may have with regards to your requests, must be forwarded directly to Capital One.

A cheque for the £1.00 fee you enclosed for the requested information will be returned to you under separate cover.

I would like to thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. If you require any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact 0151 472 7103."

My question is can they do this? i have received letters from capital one stating that they have passed on my debt. This company gave the complete impression that they owned the debt. Is this a way to delay my orginal cca request? furthermore they cashed my cheque on the 12th. Please any advice would be much appreciated

 

thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Poker, and well done for reading up. Welcome aboard, matey !!

It looks to me as though Cap One have been unable to supply the required true copy of your contract. They do not obviously wish to admit this, and are trying to wriggle out of doing so. The fact that the account has been returned to them implies that it is unenforceable, and Intrum J will not "buy" it from them. Looks to me like you've floored 'em with the first punch, mate.

My advice would be to send them another CCA request with £1, this time insisting that they clearly state whether or not they have the true copy, and that you will settle for nothing less.

 

Well done, my friend. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...