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

Baines & Ernst now CCCS - many debts


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6057 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

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 268
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It's not interesting Lizzy it's a pain in the butt, thereagain I suppose we have to get on with toppling the towers of Babilon down there in West Malling - Just think all those staff looking for new jobs, free visits to Ken ...I wonder what the Japanese will think of their little investment then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Had a chat with my local Trading standards I pointed out that i had sent for a CCA back in March and still no agreement, she wanted to know why i was requesting the agreement in the first place.

 

T/S said

hello ..i am XXXXX from trading standards can you explain why MR XXXXXXXXX has not yet recieved his CCA as requested and paid for back in march this year .also can you explain who are the four accounts he has in relation to this account untill the the intervention of yourselves does not know if he is paying the correct company.

 

Citicards told her that KINGS HILL NO1 AND CABOT both buy the accounts from citicards (once The Associates) so i should have sent a CCA request to CITICARDS as they own the account??

still confused eh:confused:

 

 

 

Spuddly, I have just re read the whole thread and I know this goes back a few weeks, but these things get overlooked sometimes with Cabot referring to themselves as ' Cabot' and writing from Cabot Financial(Europe)Ltd.

 

If you have a continuing dialogue with Trading Standards then it must be made crystal clear to them which company is doing what because this is the very crux of the matters you are trying to resolve. Remember that ALL these different actions you are asking to have undertaken, the CCA request, the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), who purchased your account from who and where your data has been despatched and shared are ALL being done through DIFFERENT COMPANIES.

 

The above quote from Citicards talking to the T/S lady " Kingshill and Cabot BOTH buy the accounts from citicards" - REALLY?? I think you'll find it was Kingshill No1 Ltd who bought the debt, Kingshill No1 who never wrote to you and told you, Kingshill No1 Ltd who registered a default and Kingshill No1 Ltd who you never see or hear from ever again. Cabot seem to cloud the issue by referring to themselves just as 'Cabot' , but their legal position is very different. Your data was passed to, amongst others no doubt, Cabot Financial(Europe)Ltd who, as has been pointed out before earlier in the thread, have their own Data controller and are one of sixteen or so different companies in the Cabot cosy little group of companies ALL of which are seperate Limited Liability Companies.

 

Trading Standards NEED to know this. Kingshill No1 Ltd - now Cabot Financial (UK)Ltd should be the ONLY company you should have ANY communication with and all that money you have paid them has been paid to the wrong company - you might just have well as paid me! CF(Europe)Ltd have NO RIGHTS to it.

 

 

..And Aktiv, you are quite right, this is cleaning up the industry a bit. I think the collective input by so many has given the likes of Ken Maynard and his 'team' something to think about, we can see changes happening, but there's a long way to go yet. What I want, and I have been a Director of companies for a good while, is to get the leadership to BELIEVE change is necessary and implement that change as a result of what is being learned from our onslaught. If they ignore it - they are doomed. There will always be debt collectors and probably rightly so, but there are laws they need to abide by and they know they have got away with this for so long, they should just accept it's now time to see things are never going to be the same. Trouble is they are from such a ruthless culture, getting through to people who always think they are right and above the law is never easy. They may have banking or legal backgrounds, but there are plenty from that industry and profession sewing mailbags at HMP so it doesn't make them right.

 

It's MY PLEASURE this time - it'll be Her Majesty's for them next.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for your comments .

 

i have been looking back and i believe the letter i sent cabot at (post 12) is even more relevant now.

 

also who would i send my letter to to get the default removed seeing as they never bothered to send me notification at the time!

Kings hill/ cabot??

 

The company who put the default on was Kingshill (No1) Ltd. Since January 15th 07 they changed their name to Cabot Financial (UK)Ltd so they are the people to address ANYTHING to - take no notice of the fact that Cabot Financial (Europe)Ltd wrote to you telling you they 'administer ' Cabots accounts - you owe nothing to them, I might just have well have written. So (UK)it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say Cabot Financial(Europe)Ltd rather than CABOT CANNOT PROVE THEY HAVE A LEGAL CLAIM

 

It is (Europe)ltd you have been paying. If you are going legal then you have to have these things very clear in your mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...