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

Advice needed for claiming charges on an outstanding loan


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5822 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'm posting on behalf of my sister who doesn't have the internet at home or work, so can only access it infrequently at Dad's house, but I'll be sending her a link to this thread, and hopefully she will take it over in due course.

 

She's in the final stages of divorce, and her part of the agreement was that her ex would remove her name from a debt with GE Capital. He hasn't. He probably won't, and is once again in financial trouble and talking about getting an IVA.

 

My sister has investigated the loan and it's left her a bit :shock:. It was taken out about 6 years ago for £4,000ish. Since then around £9,000 in payments have been made. To write the debt off today would cost £2,900 which she could borrow from myself and other relatives if needed.

 

Some of the charges are ludicrous. The example she gave was £50 search fee to track down her ex. She has frequently given them his work address, but they insist on charging this fee every month. I imagine the fees are much larger than the repayments.

 

AFAIK the account is 1 month in arrears, but has been for a long time, hence the charges.

 

My sister has asked for all statements, a copy of the original agreement (set up by her ex) and information about clearing the debt. She intends to get the charges back and has an appointment with the CAB on tuesday.

 

The questions she has at the moment are;

 

1) If she were to clear the debt now, would it prevent her claiming back charges? I.e. is it possible to claim charges back on a closed account?

 

2) If she didn't, and her ex took out an IVA, would that affect her credit rating as it's a joint loan?

 

3) Does anyone have any tips relating specifically to GE Capital? A friend of mine mentioned that their charges are now a lot higher than they used to be, and a good attack is to get them reduced to the level shown on the original agreement. Do any of you know some of the charges that they used which are easy to show as unjustifiably large?

 

Many thanks in advance.

 

Richard.

 

P.S. Are GE Capital the most evil mainstream lender? I know people with a number of debt issues, and GEC seem to be the one company they all complain about being unreasonable and charging through the nose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lifechooser,

 

In answer to question 1 there is a possibility that the claim would be jeopardised where the amount is known to be in dispute but you pay anyway

If she puts the loan account in dispute then they should not be able to report any defaults to the Credit reference agencies. If they do this can be challenged.

 

As it is a claim in joint names unfortunately the ex would need to be added to the claim.

 

I'll move your thread for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice.

 

In the end my sister has decided to pay the loan off, and not claim any charges back. This was the advice of citizens advice.

 

One thing I didn't realise, was that this loan is the last hurdle between her and her divorce, so she is more bothered about getting rid of it than getting money back.

 

Thanks for the help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...