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

Brand new to site. CCA check please.


DannysDebtBeDamned!
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5613 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

Hello to everyone who has contributed to this forum and thank you for taking the time out to help others - it is greatly appreciated. I have just joined the site yesterday so please excuse me if I have posted on the wrong place as I am struggling to find my way around the site.

 

Below is a copy of my Egg Credit Card Agreement. Can someone please tell me if it is enforceable or not.

 

Further queries/relevant information:

(1) also enclosed was a printout from the internet off the CC terms and conditions, which looks to be from their website circa 2004 by the dates mentioned. This is a separate doc entirely and has no signatures or any of my info.

(2) On page two there is a tickbox 'for the return of any supporting information sent to Egg'. This is ticked. I am about 90+% certain I don't remember sending them any supporting info, and so wouldn't have ticked this box, also the tick is not in my style of writing (sounds silly but my ticks are large and sloppy not small and prescise) and there are marks (are they just folds?) on both docs...has it been doctored, and if so what can I do?

(3) How do I work out the APR / Interest bit, or would anyone help me?

(4) Is the credit limit bit missing or is what they have put okay?

(5) Also same with the right to cancel?

(6) Many thanks for any help at all - much appreciated.

 

PAGE 1 LINK: Image of EGG CCA PAGE 1 - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

 

 

 

PAGE 2 LINK: Image of EGG CCA PAGE 2 - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

 

IMG%5D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Your agreement is the exactly the same as mine - and I think it's unenforceable due to the fact it states, "'approved limit' on the credit limit bit.

 

I read (very late last night) comments by a member of the site team on someone else's thread. I shall try and put the link in for you to see.

 

Best wishes

x:)x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi found the thread,

 

It's under the Egg forum,

 

a thread by cosalt 'a response to our CCA - please help'

 

and in there you will find some further information. It's definitely what I will be doing today.

 

Best wishes

x:)x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol sorry I forgot to paste it on !

 

 

Thank you for you letter dated XXXXXX, unfortunately egg have provided you with a copy agreement which does not comply with s61(1) of the CCA 1974 and the associated regulations and is therefore only enforceable by an order of the court by virtue of s65. However, since it does not have a term concerning the credit limit (rather, it defines an "Approved Limit" - whatever that is) as required by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, the court would be prevented from granting such an order by virtue of s127(3)

 

I trust you will now be in a position to reduce the balance on this account to £0 and request EGG to remove any default that has registered with any credit reference agency as required by the Data Protection Act 1984 since it is obviously incorrect as no agreement existed between me and Egg. If you refuse, I will commence court proceedings against you under s14 of the Data Protection Act 1984.

 

I look forward to your favourable reply within the next fourteen days.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

From this thread:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/177463-response-our-egg-cca.html

 

Typical Egg agreement. It is unenforcable becasue it doesn't have the prescreibed terms. It should have a term telling you what your credit limit is. Instead you have an approved limit - whatever that is. That is meaningless and does not comply with teh Consumer Crdit Act 1974 and its associated regulations.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...