Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for their help in this matter. Since my last post I have received a reply from Plymouth Council Insurance Team concerning my wife’s accident (please see enclosed letter and photo of the offending Badminton post) which they deny any responsibility for the said accident. I feel that the Council is in breach of their statutory duties under the following acts: The Leisure Centre was negligent in its duty of care and therefore, in breach of the statutory duty owed under section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (the Act) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees, and others who might be affected by its undertaking, e.g. members of the public visiting the Leisure Centre to use the facilities. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 that requires employers to assess risks (including slip and trip risks) and, where necessary, take action to address them. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) require the risk to people’s health and safety from equipment that is used at a Leisure Centre be prevented or controlled. I would like some advice to see if my assumptions are correct and my approach to obtaining satisfactory outcome to this matter are accurate. Many thanks   PLM23000150 - Copy Correspondence.pdf post docx.docx
    • Talking to them does not reset the time limit, although they will probably tell you it does, they'd be lying. Dumbdales are the in-house sols for Lowlife, just the next desk along. If Lowlifes were corresponding with you at your current address then Dumbdales know your address. However, knowing that they are lower than a snake's belly, you would be well advised to send them a letter, informing them of your current address and nothing else. Get 'proof of posting' which is free from the PO counter, don't sign it, simply type your name. That way then they have absolutely no excuse for attempting a back door CCJ.   P.S. Best course of action, IGNORE them, until or unless you get a claim form......you won't.
    • A 'signed for' Letter of Claim has been sent today so they have 14 days from tomorrow... Lets wait and see what happens but i suspect judging by their attitude they wont reply 
    • I am extremely apprehensive about burning our files.... I do not know why, so it is becoming an endless feedback loop. Scared to pull the trigger to speak in the desire not to mess up my file. 
    • Hi All, So brief outline. I have Natwest CC debt £8k last payment i made was 7th November 2018 Not a penny since. So coming up to the 6 year mark. Can't remember when i took out the  credit card would be a few years before everythign hit the fan. Moved house 2020 - updated NatWest as I still have a current account with them. Then Lowells took over from Moorcroft and were writing to me at my current address. I did get a family member to speak to them 3 years ago regarding the debt explained although it may be in my name I didn't rack it up then went contact again. 29th may received an email from overdales saying they were now managing the debt. I have not had any letter yet which i thought is odd?  Couple of questions 1. Does my family member speaking to lowell restart statute barred clock? 2. Do you think overdales aren't writing to me because they will back door CCJ to old address even though Lowells have contacted me at current address never at previous? ( have no proof though stupidly binned all letters  ) Should I write to them and confirm my address just incase? Does this restart statute barred clock? 3. what do you think best course of action is?   Any help/advice is appreciated I am aware they may ramp up the process now due to 7th December being the 6 year mark.   Many Thanks in advance! The threads on here have been super helpful to read.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

new car problems, fraud and repossession


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6205 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

in 2001 i bought a new car on hp (business)

in 2002 i bought another new car on hp (personal)

in nov 2002 the second car was fully refunded due to mfr engine troubles

the garage offered a replacement to be delivered 3 months later

to receive refund cheque when the dealer came to collect car from my house, they forced me to sign a 'this is an end to our dealings' letter con - which included a number of clauses stating: that i will not contact the dealer again, that all matters are resolved, that a replacement car would be supplied by another garage,

i tried to avoid signing, then signed the letter upside down, saying i'm signing this under economical duress, as i need the money

however as the garage had damaged the stereo in the 2nd car and the other garage never supplied the replacement car (sold to someone else on a waiting list), the stereo was left in pieces

in 2003 was a victim of fraud on my bank accounts

in 2004 my bank stopped paying ddebits to car finance for first car while i was abroad

car company issued default and said a baillif was hired to collect vehicle, which only had 3 months out of a 36 month agreement left

i dropped car off at dealership

they auctioned it off and i lost (it seems forever) a £1000 dvla number plate.

in 2006 took garage to court (money claim online) as they had not fixed my stereo among other issues

had a bit of personal trouble and was unable to send claim documents to court/garage's solicitors

attended court - just me, judge and car dealers barrister. said that i had been conned by dealership and they had not kept to the agreement, which included statements saying that i should not contact the dealership, i then produced a range of communications from the garage who had contacted me - invites for test drives, product info, emails, servicing letters etc. I asked the judge if the non-contact agreement was reciprocal, he said yes.

i was then asked to send in all docs i had

i failed to do so, and judge struck out claim.

Can i re-instigate proceedings?

The claim was specifically for the damage to the car stereo.

I'd like to claim for more now, including damages for misleading/tricking me into signing dodgy agreement which garage did not stick to

can you re-start something that's been struck off?

 

as far as litigation goes, i am considering:

 

dealer: damage to stereo, failure to supply 2 vehicles (had a 3rd car on order), damages, loss of earnings, false agreement, any affect on statutory rights?

 

bank: fraud prevented me being able to pay for car which eventually was repossessed. Bank wholly negligent and therefore responsible for fraud. They have paid back stolen monies and some

bank charges. As fraud bank's fault are they wholly liable? even though garage is to blame too.

Court date set for July.

 

car finance company: demanded car back when only 3 months left on agreement - have heard that if 2/3rds of car is paid they cannot repossess - is this true for business hp?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both vehicles will be on unregulated agreements then. Am afraid this means that you have no rights to halves and thirds rule. 25k is the ceiling at which a regulated agreement can be made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir T, the bank side of it is not a speciality of mine so I would decline to comment on whether they could be held accountable. If you need it I can send you the contact details inc mobile of someone high up at BMW Finance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks calvi36 that would be great, can you post/pm the details? i remember talking to the head of the finance department at the time - head repossesor etc she was unaware that i only had three months left on the agreement when i told her, she said that if she had known, she would not have authorised the default and repossession - and that bmw do not repossess so late into an agreement but as said as she had already got the ball rolling, there was nothing she could do to reverse the situation that's some service i received... and my blood boiled... and still is

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...