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
      • 160 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

help needed: company threatens to charge backdated interest!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6141 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 all

 

Bit of a strange one this. Am in correspondence with one of these cheque cashing companies about unfair charges (they charged me £25 per bounced cheque, last year). My account with them is now clear, and has been since around the end of 2006, so I don't owe them any money at all.

 

They replied basically saying the charge is in their T&Cs (yes, I know, and I can deal with that) and also saying "we draw your attention to the interest section of the T&Cs. So far, we have not excercised our right to charge interest on your account. Accordingly, we consider the matter closed".

 

So, they're threatening to charge interest on my account if I proceed? Surely they can't charge back-dated interest?

 

Can anyone offer any advice about this?

 

Thanks all

GG

Capital One: S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) 14 Nov 06, Prelim 8 Dec 06, LBA 10 Jan 07, MCOL 1 Mar 07. Settled in full 2 Apr 07. :)

HSBC: Prelim 27 Feb 07, LBA 10 Apr 2007, Received offer 25 Apr 07. Rejected 2nd May 07. Received new offer 22 May 2007. Accepted 22 May 2007. Settled.

Barclaycard: SAR 2nd May 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Bookworm. They've highlighted a bit of what's called 'Key Information' - I'll represent the bit they've highlighted with **, but will include the whole bit:

 

**Dishonoured cheques will incur a default charge of £25 each.** You may also be liable to any other reasonable costs and charges that we incur or pay to a third party, including legal costs which arise out of your breach of the agreement and any costs we may incur if we have to trace you. **We are also entitled to charge you default interest on unpaid sums at the rate of interest above**

 

Forgot to say, that in their letter they also stated that the charges reflect the cost, but didn't attempt to prove it, it was just a stipulation.

 

Thanks

GG

Capital One: S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) 14 Nov 06, Prelim 8 Dec 06, LBA 10 Jan 07, MCOL 1 Mar 07. Settled in full 2 Apr 07. :)

HSBC: Prelim 27 Feb 07, LBA 10 Apr 2007, Received offer 25 Apr 07. Rejected 2nd May 07. Received new offer 22 May 2007. Accepted 22 May 2007. Settled.

Barclaycard: SAR 2nd May 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also says, later on, in the T&Cs: "Interest on overdue amounts may continue to be charged after any judgement has been obtained against you".

 

But surely they can't apply this after account is clear?

 

GG

Capital One: S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) 14 Nov 06, Prelim 8 Dec 06, LBA 10 Jan 07, MCOL 1 Mar 07. Settled in full 2 Apr 07. :)

HSBC: Prelim 27 Feb 07, LBA 10 Apr 2007, Received offer 25 Apr 07. Rejected 2nd May 07. Received new offer 22 May 2007. Accepted 22 May 2007. Settled.

Barclaycard: SAR 2nd May 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, exactly. You can add as much % to a zero balance, it's not going to amount to much, is it.... :rolleyes:

 

I tell you one thing, though, that last bit you've added is a big fat lie. Irrelevant to you now, but once judgment has been entered in court, interest doesn't accrue.

 

Ok, so ignore their bluster and carry on regardless. They are so used of chasing poor sods that they don't seem to realise that you are chasing them this time. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks bookworm. The thing is, it looks like from their t&cs that they *could* have charged me interest when my account defaulted last time. They didn't - what I paid back was the original amount plus an extra £25 for the defaulted cheque [[edit see below]]. So, could they try and get that money out of me (from the time the payment defaulted to the time I paid it off) even though the account is now clear? It all seems a bit odd to me. I could do with some legal info about this to hit them with, but haven't found anything about it...yet...

 

There are other odd things in their t&cs. In the letter, they say they didn't charge me interest. Yet it is one of these pay day advance things, where you give them a cheque for, say, £100 and they give you £87 back and bank the cheque a month later. In the t&cs, it's described like this:

 

Total charge for credit interest (blah blah) "This is calculated at 13% of the face value of the cheque on the date of the loan".

 

So, in fact, you pay the interest in advance, when you start the process, so, in fact, I did pay interest on each cheque.

 

I may not have paid for the month it was defaulted, though, but in any case they charged me £25 which more than covers it!

 

See what I mean? Am I thinking straight?

 

GG

 

[[edit: amount paid back in total on a £100 cheque = £113 + defaulted fee £25 = £138]]

Capital One: S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) 14 Nov 06, Prelim 8 Dec 06, LBA 10 Jan 07, MCOL 1 Mar 07. Settled in full 2 Apr 07. :)

HSBC: Prelim 27 Feb 07, LBA 10 Apr 2007, Received offer 25 Apr 07. Rejected 2nd May 07. Received new offer 22 May 2007. Accepted 22 May 2007. Settled.

Barclaycard: SAR 2nd May 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they chose not to charge interest then, they can't change their mind and apply it retrospectively, simple as that. Your balance is now 0, that's it.

 

They are trying to intimidate you and confuse you. Don't let them. They might consider the matter closed, but in this instance, it's not up to them, is it. :-D

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent, that's what I thought, thanks. Is there something official I can use to back that up in my reply to them.

 

Their final point in the t&c says "This agreement is governed by English Law", which is good, as it invalidates their charges unless they can prove what it costs them, doesn't it!

 

GG

Capital One: S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) 14 Nov 06, Prelim 8 Dec 06, LBA 10 Jan 07, MCOL 1 Mar 07. Settled in full 2 Apr 07. :)

HSBC: Prelim 27 Feb 07, LBA 10 Apr 2007, Received offer 25 Apr 07. Rejected 2nd May 07. Received new offer 22 May 2007. Accepted 22 May 2007. Settled.

Barclaycard: SAR 2nd May 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...