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

Citi Cards are going to court


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6129 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 I have a court date early September with Citi Cards. I won't say when as they monitor this site and I don't want to give them any more help against me.

 

I need to know details of any time they have lost or paid out before a hearing.

 

Can any one confirm they have lost in court, and if so can they send me details?

 

In their bundle they are stating that their actual cost of sending out a late charge "using OFT methodology" is £13.47!

Anyone have any idea as to the true cost to them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you post details regarding the amount they are quoting. There wording etc. You can send them via Pm if you wish.

 

It was from a witness statement by Lee Ledwith, a senior accountant with Citi Card.

customers. Using that methodology, the Defendant's actual default fees per breach of contract were calculated as £27.42 although the Defendant only charged £25.

9. The OFT invited submissions from the eight leading credit card suppliers. Citi was not invited to participate. Citi does not agree with the OFT's conclusions on permitted costs of breach nor the inclusion of uncollected fees in the

denominator used to calculate the same and responded to the OFT as such. However, a commercial decision was taken to accept the £12 fee going forwards despite our calculations showing the true cost using the prescribed OFT methodology being £13.47.

10. This does represent a genuine pre-estimate of the Defendants losses per breach of contract by customers and is in-line with the factors and methodology which its regulatory body, the OFT, has stated to be fair and reasonable.

11. With due respect to the Claimant, he offers no alternative analysis of the

correct level of charges which the credit industry should charge. Without an alternative the Defendant believes the OFT, which has had the benefit of the confidential submissions of the credit card industry into their costs, is well placed to put a reasonable therefore genuine pre-estimate on their costs which it has done at £12.

12. The OFT report acknowledges that default fees are not, per se, unfair and allows that costs of up to £12 are recoverable to pay for such infrastructure.

13. The Defendant's own costs are higher but for the reasons already set out it has adopted the lower fee. The Defendant has at all times acted within the law and within the obligations imposed upon it by its regulator and continues to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly the same wording they used in their whitness statement to me, others they changed the figure to £12.88, if you PM either ENRON or GIZMO they have all the information you need, they are aware citi read all the postings on the citi site but they have other info which will help you, my own case with citi was stayed a couple of weeks ago for 4 months..Gc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I have a court date early September with Citi Cards. I won't say when as they monitor this site and I don't want to give them any more help against me.

 

I need to know details of any time they have lost or paid out before a hearing.

 

Can any one confirm they have lost in court, and if so can they send me details?

 

In their bundle they are stating that their actual cost of sending out a late charge "using OFT methodology" is £13.47!

Anyone have any idea as to the true cost to them?

 

We don't kno the full cost - but it is nowhere near what they are quoting.

Can you let me have details of what is in their bundle, what you put in yours, if the card was an associates one and if it was passed to a debt collector. e-mail to [email protected]

Thanks

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will pass on my court stuff for you to read as well, including tips on compiling your bundle.

Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...