Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Citi and a warning to all credit card claims


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5883 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

I have today received a letter from Citi Cards which was unexpected because I have put this claim on the back burner for a while and have not exchanged any correspondence with them since September last year.

 

In amongst the normal we are right rubbish they always write is this little gem...

Citi Cards recognises that customers sometimes exceed their credit limit and/or fail to make a payment and has systems and procedures in place to deal with this.

 

I believe this is a direct result of the OFT test case judgment and Citi will now be claiming there is no breach of contract and therefore no penalty charge.

 

I will of course be responding in my normal way :grin: and maybe its time this claim came off the back burner to make them prove their outright lie that they have

successfully argued the fairness of this policy and of the £12 charge in court with the result that the claims have been dismissed, and the courts have implicitly held that the policy is fair and the charges reasonable

 

I think the County Courts would like to see evidence of this too.

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

I put it in general because of the implications to other credit card claims, I think it should go back to the general forum :rolleyes: and no this was always a Citi Card account.

 

It is an old letter rehashed but they have added the Common Law no breach sentence.

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cos I never saw it - moved now:)

 

It's not exactly off topic, but Citi are unique in their tactics and will get more interest and be of more use to Citi claimants who may never see your thread in the general forum.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi to Castlebest and everyone. I received the exact same letter from the Office of the Chief Executive today!

I have posted it in the Citi thread as suggested in case anyone wishes to read it in it's entirety.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya John, I think we will find its gone to all of the Citi card claimants to try to introduce the recent comments by Judge Smith in the OFT Judgment that there is no breach of contract because the contract allows for misdemenors... which is true after a fashion with most current accounts but is not true with credit cards.

 

which is why I wanted this in the general forum to get a little debate and a few ideas instead of a record of my Citi claim in the city claim forum :rolleyes:.

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

They havent said though, that everytime a court has asked them to justify their charges - whether it be the merchantile or small claims they always default!

 

Strange that. Some might say that they have something to hide.

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...