Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please can you avoid posting solid blocks of text. It is difficult for people to read especially when they are using a small screen such as a telephone. Well spaced and punctuated please. I hear what you say about the evidence – but do you have copies of it? And if so can we see it please. That's the point. We want to know what you have. As long as you have the evidence in your possession then you have some kind of control
    • Hi, the vehicle went to Audi Chingford on Thursday 13th May. I did state beforehand that I only wanted a diagnostic. The technician out of courtesy opened the drain letting huge deposits of water escape the seals. Video evidence was provided via AUDI cam. The link for the audi cam has been forwarded to BMW and Motonovo. I spoke to branch manager explained the situation and he stated he would sent me an email outlining the issue. Audi state this is not really an issue and more of a design flaw. However, the seals still have water ingress. I purchased the vehicle with £0 deposit on a 60 months HP plan for £520.00. The vehicle total was £21000. I did not go for any extended warranty. I live almost 70 miles away from the aftersales centre in Peterborough. I have previously uploaded the document I forwarded to BMW however it was in word format. I have had to buy a new tyre almost three days after purchasing vehicle. BMW still have not compensated me for the v62 cost as they said they would. 
    • I would suggest that you stop trying to rely on legal theory – as you understand it. Firstly, because we are dealing with practical/pragmatic situations and at a low value level where these arguments tend not to work. Secondly, because you clearly have misunderstood the assessment of quantum where there are breaches of obligations. The formula that you have cited above is the method of loss calculation in torts. In contract it is entirely different. The law of obligations generally attempts to remedy the breach. This means that in tort, damages seek to put you into the position you would have been in had the breach not occurred. In other words it returns you to your starting position – point zero. Contract damages attend put you into the position that you would have been had the breach not occurred but this is not your starting position, contract damages assume that the agreement in dispute had actually been carried out. This puts you into your final position. You sold an item for £XXX. Your expectation was that you your item would be correctly delivered and that you would be the beneficiary of £XXX. Your expectation loss is the amount that you sold the item for and that is all you are entitled to recover. If you want, you can try to sue for the larger sum – and we will help you. But if they ask for evidence of the value of the item as it was sold then I can almost guarantee that either you will be obliged to settle for the lesser sum – or else a judge will give you judgement but for the lesser sum. This will put you to the position that you would have been had there been no breach of contract. I understand from you now that when you dispatch the item you declared the retail cost to you and not your expected benefit of £XXX. To claim for the retail value in the circumstances would offend the rules relating to betterment. If you want to do it then we will help you – but don't be surprised if you take a tumble.  
    • I was caught speeding 3 times in the same week, on the same road. All times were 8-12mph higher than the limit. I was offered the course for the first offense and I now need to accept the other 2 offenses. I just want to be ready for what might come. Will I get the £100 fine and 3 points for each of them or do I face something more severe?  These are my only offenses in 8 years of driving.
    • I'll get my letter drafted this evening. Its an item I sold, which I'm also concerned about, as whilst I don't have my original purchase receipt (the best I have is my credit card statement showing a purchase from Car Audio Centre), I do unfortunately have the eBay listing where I sold it for much less. But as I said before this is now a question of compensation: true compensation would seek to put me back into the position I was in before the loss ie: that title would remain with me until my buyer has accepted this, and so compensation should be that which would be needed to replace the lost item. But in the world of instant electronic payment, it could be argued that as I had already been paid, the title to the goods had already transferred, and I was required to refund the buyer after the loss. And so, despite my declared value being the retail price - that which is needed to return me to my pre-sales position, the compensatory value should be the value I sold it for, which being a second-hand item from a private seller is lower. I still believe that I should be claiming for the item's full value, rather than how much I sold it for, as this is the same for insurance: we don't insure the value we paid, but rather the value of the item to put us back into the position we would be in if we ever needed to claim. Its for the loss adjuster to argue the toss
  • 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

Welcome Finance - This company needs to be banned.


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4604 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

  • Replies 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Andie.

 

Take a look at the letter i recieved from Mr p, They're his words not mine, pay special attention to last Paragraph on 1st page....

 

Let me know what you think..

 

http://i722.photobucket.com/albums/ww223/1sammyc1974/Page2of2004.jpg

 

http://i722.photobucket.com/albums/ww223/1sammyc1974/Page2of2005.jpg

 

Right, so he is adamant that NO interest has been charged on that acceptance fee.....not that they have but it is ok cause it has been layed out correctly (Wilson case).

 

So why are all the Statement of Prices clearly showing interest calculated on the acceptance fee and that larger amount clearly shown as part of your monthly payment?

 

And why then do the statements show the total credit with the acceptance fee added THEN all your interest calculated....on your statement they actually add that acceptance fee to yuor total credit. They just do not show it on the agreement that way and are trying to rely on that.

 

But why?????????????????????????

Dipply75

 

I am in no way a legal advisor and only speak from my own experiences and the helpful advice of those in the same boat! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andie,

 

Will do.

 

Take care and hope that all goes well with you too....:)

 

Voda.

 

PS. I sent you a PM earlier, did you have more thought on the matter.

 

Good Luck Voda - keep in touch
Link to post
Share on other sites

LIFECARE was before MEDICARE.....they're the same thing ... I have a leaflet for both here.

 

 

So am I to understand that if both names appear on your agreement they have sold what amounts to the same product twice on the one agreement....in other-words double bubble for them:evil:

Link to post
Share on other sites

RNS Number : 0083P

Cattles PLC

17 March 2009

 



Cattles plc

£400,000,000 7.125% bonds due 2017 (the "Bonds"), issued pursuant to a Trust Deed dated 5 July 2007 (as amended from time to time) between Cattles plc (the "Issuer") and HSBC Trustee (C.I.) Limited (the "Trustee")

The Issuer is aware that certain bondholders are seeking to form a co-ordinated group to allow dialogue between the Issuer and bondholders, in light of recent announcements by the Issuer. Bondholders wishing to participate in this group are requested to contact John Hale at the ABI in the first instance.

The Issuer has had an initial, informal meeting with certain of the bondholders to discuss the current position. The information provided by it at the meeting was in the public domain or of a non-price sensitive nature. Details of the matters discussed at the meeting are to be provided on request. Contact details for this purpose are as follows:

 

 

Cattles plc

Kingston House

Centre 27 Business Park

Woodhead Road

Birstall

Batley

West Yorkshire WF17 9TD

Fax: +44 (0) 1924 448 324

Attention: M.W.G. Collins

Further to the announcement by the Issuer on 10 March 2009 in which the Issuer gave notice that the Board believes that the Issuer is in breach of covenants under its borrowing arrangements, the Issuer has given notice to the Trustee that a Potential Event of Default has occurred under the Bonds by reason of the cross-default provisions in the Bonds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

have a look at this people

 

one of the ones ime helping on.

you realise now why i loathe welcome so much,

 

notice the bit about the mot

 

is it not a legal requirement that a vehicle cant be sold by a dealer with out an mot

 

IMG-25.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

the thing i see here is

 

a dealer must sell a car with an M.O.T. what welcome seem to be saying is

when the person bought the car, the dealer whoever he or she was promised to the buyer probably verbally, that a full 12 month m.o.t. would be put on the car. and after buying the car, the buyer only found that the m.o.t. was for less than 12 months

am i right in thinking that the dealer is part of the welcome house of cards

it it is, then they should be shot

welcome should be shot as well, for putting the onus on the customer to prove wrong doing

i think that both welcome and the car dealer are in colusion with each other, as most dealers are who sell there cars to welcome customers

they are all shisters the lot of them

NEVER BUY A CAR THROUGH A DEALER WHO DEALS WITH WELCOME OR THERE LIKE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Work commitments have prevented me doing so, but aiming to get in there tomorrow if not it will be saturday :grin::grin: Me and my file will travel;)

 

Welcome, we're gonna get ya !!!:p:p:D:D:D:D:D BIG TIME !!!

 

B-O-2

 

 

Just to update you all....

 

I called at my local station on my way home from work last night, to find a big notice on the door saying due to the shortage of officers,:( please go to a.n.other station. address is blah blah. This a.n.other station is situated at the other side of the county....:-x needless to say, i didnt, had to get my child from nursery..

But will be going today, to the one in my parents town, its situated just at the end of their road...lets hope i can find a policeman there today !!

 

Will post back later, to let you know how i got on, if in deed i can find a police officer !!!:rolleyes:

 

regards b-o-2

ANYBODY WHO NEEDS INFO ON YOUR LEHMANS MORTGAGE

either SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL; the following are DIRECT tel#s,

of the investigating & prosecuting organisations: DONOT say you are from CAG-only directly affected or a concerned citizen.

 

1. Companies House: Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

2. CH : Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia(MD) for SPML/PML) @ 02920 380 643

3. CH : Mark Youde(accounts compliance) @ 02920 380 955

 

4. Companies Investigation Branch(CIB) : Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108

(part of the Insolvency Service) investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

5. CIB : Jeremy Pilcher('unofficial'-consumer/company lawyer) : @ 0207 637 6231

__________________

File YOUR 'Companies Investigation Branch'- CIB complaint online NOW!!!!

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/complaintformcib.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, so he is adamant that NO interest has been charged on that acceptance fee.....not that they have but it is ok cause it has been layed out correctly (Wilson case).

 

So why are all the Statement of Prices clearly showing interest calculated on the acceptance fee and that larger amount clearly shown as part of your monthly payment?

 

And why then do the statements show the total credit with the acceptance fee added THEN all your interest calculated....on your statement they actually add that acceptance fee to yuor total credit. They just do not show it on the agreement that way and are trying to rely on that.

 

But why?????????????????????????

 

My advice, send it straight to FOS - he says you can take it as a final response and what have you got to lose?

 

His words they have not charged interest we know they have.

 

I'm sure when they get around to mine I'll get the same pro-forma response. FOS is already on notice about mine so as soon as I get a final response mine will go there.

 

I think it's an absolute joke, the analogy of it is like me saying if I kill someone it's not murder if I've got them to sign an agreement to say it's ok for me to break the law!!

And in my case I was not given a copy of the paperwork that I signed and not enough time to read it and even if I was their paperwork is made DELIBERATLEY complicated so people do not know what they are actually signing.

 

It's a complete racket and I for one am not gonna just stand by and say it's ok - I'll take it to the FOS or possibly even court and let them make a decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to update you all....

 

I called at my local station on my way home from work last night, to find a big notice on the door saying due to the shortage of officers,:( please go to a.n.other station. address is blah blah. This a.n.other station is situated at the other side of the county....:-x needless to say, i didnt, had to get my child from nursery..

But will be going today, to the one in my parents town, its situated just at the end of their road...lets hope i can find a policeman there today !!

 

Will post back later, to let you know how i got on, if in deed i can find a police officer !!!:rolleyes:

 

regards b-o-2

 

 

Yay for you make sure you get a crime number - also ask them to recommend a graphologist they use in the local area - you may just need that extra proof. The police are likely to try and dissuade you from making a formal complaint as it's work for them they don't need but at the end of the day they have committed fraud under your hubbys name so keep pushing be adament you want to make a complaint.

 

Let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RNS Number : 0083P

Cattles PLC

17 March 2009

 



Cattles plc

£400,000,000 7.125% bonds due 2017 (the "Bonds"), issued pursuant to a Trust Deed dated 5 July 2007 (as amended from time to time) between Cattles plc (the "Issuer") and HSBC Trustee (C.I.) Limited (the "Trustee")

The Issuer is aware that certain bondholders are seeking to form a co-ordinated group to allow dialogue between the Issuer and bondholders, in light of recent announcements by the Issuer. Bondholders wishing to participate in this group are requested to contact John Hale at the ABI in the first instance.

The Issuer has had an initial, informal meeting with certain of the bondholders to discuss the current position. The information provided by it at the meeting was in the public domain or of a non-price sensitive nature. Details of the matters discussed at the meeting are to be provided on request. Contact details for this purpose are as follows:

 

 

Cattles plc

Kingston House

Centre 27 Business Park

Woodhead Road

Birstall

Batley

West Yorkshire WF17 9TD

Fax: +44 (0) 1924 448 324

Attention: M.W.G. Collins

Further to the announcement by the Issuer on 10 March 2009 in which the Issuer gave notice that the Board believes that the Issuer is in breach of covenants under its borrowing arrangements, the Issuer has given notice to the Trustee that a Potential Event of Default has occurred under the Bonds by reason of the cross-default provisions in the Bonds.

 

 

Bobby - am i reading this right? the paragraph at the bottom are Cattles saying they are likely to default? i.e. can't pay them back?:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Due In To Wcf Office On Monday Am Apparently The Person Who Drew Up The Modified Agreement Has Been Sacked And Tghe Manager Says Bthe Loan Issgtill A Car Loan Even If Head Office Have It As A Home Improvement Loan

Havent A Clue How To Fight This As It Seems So Complicated

Link to post
Share on other sites

Due In To Wcf Office On Monday Am Apparently The Person Who Drew Up The Modified Agreement Has Been Sacked And Tghe Manager Says Bthe Loan Issgtill A Car Loan Even If Head Office Have It As A Home Improvement Loan

Havent A Clue How To Fight This As It Seems So Complicated

 

have you cca'd them for the modified agreement paperwork?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yay for you make sure you get a crime number - also ask them to recommend a graphologist they use in the local area - you may just need that extra proof. The police are likely to try and dissuade you from making a formal complaint as it's work for them they don't need but at the end of the day they have committed fraud under your hubbys name so keep pushing be adament you want to make a complaint.

 

Let me know.

 

Hi Andi, Just out of a matter of curiosity, once i have obtained the crime ref no, which doors will open up with it ??

thx

b-o-2

ANYBODY WHO NEEDS INFO ON YOUR LEHMANS MORTGAGE

either SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL; the following are DIRECT tel#s,

of the investigating & prosecuting organisations: DONOT say you are from CAG-only directly affected or a concerned citizen.

 

1. Companies House: Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

2. CH : Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia(MD) for SPML/PML) @ 02920 380 643

3. CH : Mark Youde(accounts compliance) @ 02920 380 955

 

4. Companies Investigation Branch(CIB) : Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108

(part of the Insolvency Service) investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

5. CIB : Jeremy Pilcher('unofficial'-consumer/company lawyer) : @ 0207 637 6231

__________________

File YOUR 'Companies Investigation Branch'- CIB complaint online NOW!!!!

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/complaintformcib.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

unenforceability due to fraud - thats on top of the fact it was never enforceable anyway due to only 1 signature. I think they must the relinquish the security on your house.

 

Then you can claim compensation from them.

 

They won't make it easy though I think you may have to get a solicitor but in the end Welcome will pay for that too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO EXCUSE MY IGNORANCE WHATS CCA

 

Basically a copy of the agreement u signed with them - do you already have one? even if you have it's worth requesting a copy of theirs as if they don't or can't provide it that means you don't have to pay til they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically a copy of the agreement u signed with them - do you already have one? even if you have it's worth requesting a copy of theirs as if they don't or can't provide it that means you don't have to pay til they do.

NO I DONT HAVE A COPY JUST MY STATEMENT WHEN I ASKED THE OFFICE MAMAGER FOR A COPY SHE SAID IT WAS ON A DIFFFERENT COMPUTER SYSTEM AND WOULD SEND IT TO ME THIS WAS 3 WEEKS AGO

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok i'll find you the letter you need to post with a £1 postal order - send it recorded delivery to the head office address they then have 12 days +2 (for postage) to comply - then we can see what it says on there. If it says anything about loan for home imporvements or makes no reference to the car it is no longer secured on it.

 

Also if they fail to provide it you don't have to pay them again til they do and there's not a thing they can do about it.

 

Bear with me finding the letter now

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4604 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...