Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Should I accept or not?


born2bongo
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6295 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

I sent a claim for refund of charges and overdraft interest to FD at the beginning of the year. The total was £850.

 

They sent the standard waffle with an offer for approx two thirds of that, which I rejected with the LBA.

 

They are now offering just the charges only, without interest. They say the reason for this is that additional interest is only awarded in a successful court case.

 

As I understand it, the interest awarded in court is on top of the interest that they have charged for my being overdrawn by the amount of their charges. It is, in effect, a credit interest in respect of my loss of funds during the time they have unlawfully withheld the charges.

 

At first I was minded to accept the current offer for peace of mind. Then I realised my account is overdrawn by a sum equivalent of the total charges plus half of the interest I am claiming. I considered going back with a counter offer to reduce my account to zero and close it with no further charges. The attempt to deceive me over the interest has annoyed me though and I am now wondering whether to continue after all.

 

OK. Now. Who thinks I should accept, who thinks I should compromise, and who thinks I should go the distance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok its a little confusing :confused::-)

 

So on your initail reuest did you ask for the charges and the overdraft interest? Or the charges and the statutory 8% court interest?

 

If you asked for the overdraft interest you can only claim the portion that is a direct result of a charge. Please clarify thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I entered my charges into the MSE calculator. I've since looked at the one on this site and notice it is more specific about balances at interest charge date, etc. I entered these details and the amount was significantly less so I guess this means I've gone for the statutory interest and not the overdraft interest.

 

I guess that also means I'm too late to go for the overdraft interest, although it wasn't huge so not a big issue. I'm sure the bank know what I've done as well, so that's why they've put the comment in the letter.

 

I'm still left with the same 3 options though. Take the refund of the charges only, go for the compromise, or hold out for the full 8%.

 

Have I made things more difficult by including statutory interest when I did?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I entered my charges into the MSE calculator. I've since looked at the one on this site and notice it is more specific about balances at interest charge date, etc. I entered these details and the amount was significantly less so I guess this means I've gone for the statutory interest and not the overdraft interest.

 

I guess that also means I'm too late to go for the overdraft interest, although it wasn't huge so not a big issue. I'm sure the bank know what I've done as well, so that's why they've put the comment in the letter.

 

I'm still left with the same 3 options though. Take the refund of the charges only, go for the compromise, or hold out for the full 8%.

 

Have I made things more difficult by including statutory interest when I did?

 

Ok I would forget the overdraft interest unless you want to resubmit your claim asking for it. The 8% is only added when you file at court, so if they are offering you all your charges back and you have not submitted a court claim then this is correct. You need to accept the offer as its the full amount, you have won!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...