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

Default Removal - Mabore vs Egg Card


mabore
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5975 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

Let's recap:

 

Egg defaulted you in March 2006 although you have no recollection of ever having receieved a default notice. On the Experian screen it says your credit limit was £1380 and the default or 'delinquent balance' £1214

 

Egg have sent you a copy of the executed agreement and all your statements but not a copy of the default notice. They say this is because the account has been closed for such a long time (actually about 20 months).

 

From your statements you have £40 in unlawful charges (2 charges for going over your credit limit).

 

OK so far?

 

The question is to understand why the default was issued to Experian. (This comes back to my earlier question about the legitimacy of the default. I don't think you can get a default removed simply because you don't remember receiving a default notice.)

 

From your statements, do you appear to have missed a load of payments around the start of 2006? (If so, I would expect you to have receieved more charges than just the two) Or were you seriously over your credit limit and didn't make a payment to bring the balance down to the limit when asked to do so?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steven

 

I haven’t missed any payments, I had the direct debit setup and made manual payments. So going through the statements I can see each direct debit payment made is followed by ‘ADJUSTMENT TO PAYMENT’ like the payments have bounced/ no funds. This can’t be the case because funds were available. So I’ve contacted my bank (Britannia building society) to query and they’ve advised me building societies don’t have direct debit facilities and egg should have not approved the application in the first place.

 

I think I can use this to my benefit because if it wasn’t a suitable account (you have to have a DD with egg card) the online application should’ve spotted this with its validation checks surely.

 

I’ve uploaded a few statements that they sent me (all in 1 pdf):

 

4shared.com - free file sharing and storage - Login

 

user: mboreuk@yahoo.co.uk

pass: eggegg

 

Thanks

 

Mabore

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi mabore

 

I have been thinking about this and also taken some advice from the 'team'.

 

It is true that Egg ought to take some responsibility for not telling you they couldn't set up a DD and perhaps Britannia could have been more helpful and let you know that Egg were trying to set one up when they didn't do DDs.

 

However, the situation remains that every month for almost 2 years, Egg sent you a statement where the DD was shown and shown to not be paid. It was your responsibility to find out what was happening - you could have found out about the lack of DD facility on your Britannia acount in about October 2004, if you had examined your Egg statements (and Britannia statements come to that).

 

Even though you thought you had a DD arrangement set up, the fact remains that you didn't make the payments to Egg and they were well within their right to issue a default.

 

The only other question is the legitimacy of the default from a 'technical' point of view. The most you can say is that you don't remember being sent notification. Egg are technically in the wrong by not supplying a copy of the default notice in response to your CCA and Data Protection Act requests.

 

However, the feeling is that a court is unlikely to regard your case favourably as you had the responsibility and the means to prevent the situation arising and, further, a court is unlikely to be swayed by the argument that Egg are in breach of s87(1) simply because they cannot produce a copy after 2 years, particularly given the rest of the circumstances.

 

Sorry if this is not what you wanted to hear but it is our considered view.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steven

 

Thanks for your advice. I still want to take this further (the court). What steps do I need to take regarding the 2 charges, default, and eggs non validation of DD on my account and still approved the application.

 

Also what are the costs involved.

 

Thanks

 

Mabore

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi mabore

 

You can recalim the two charges in the same way as for anybank charges - send them a preliminary letter asking for them back and give them 14 days to reply. If that doesn't do it, send an LBA, again with 14 days to comply. After that, file a claim in your local court.

 

I would suggest you follow up Egg's failure to validate your DD application with the Financial Ombudsman's office. I think the court route could expose you to £100s costs. You should proabbaly make a complaint through Egg's complaints procedure first. You could combine this with the charges claim.

 

My suggestion:

 

1) send prelim letter making a formal complaint about Egg's failure to validate your DD and asking for charges back.

 

2) After 14 days, send LBA saying you will pursue both complaints through the FO

 

3) Egg will probably say the the complaint will take 8 weeks to be dealt with. THis is in accrodance with FO advice. So wait until the 8 weeks (from your prelim letter) is up, and then make a compliant to the FO if Egg have not resolved the situation.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...