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

Comments from a passer by


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5607 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 am truly saddened by what I've been reading. However, a few points jumped out at me after mulling over the stories.

 

From what I can see, nobody has made a comparison so far to LBL and a pawn broker.

 

From the descriptions offered, it appears as through LBL are acting as pawn brokers for cars. This is a reasonably common practice in the US.

 

I am not sure if these types of agreements would be regulated under legislation and licencing covering pawn brokers, but perhaps its worth considering?

 

A pawn broker typically offers a sum of money for an item, well below its market value. You have a set period of time to buy the item back, with interest, or the item is sold and you are still left with the payments. The item acts as security.

 

In LBL's case, they are offering small loans against your car (security). They now effectively own it (until a legal judgement proves otherwise) but agree not to sell it for a set period of time to allow you to repay what you borrowed. If you dont pay, and they make it deliberately difficult for you to do so, they sell it on at a profit.

 

The similarity seems quite striking to me. I apologise if this post, my first, isnt particularly helpful, but since the point hadnt been mentioned I thought I'd bring it up in case one of our more legally minded members has a view point.

 

I wish you success in your claims against LBL because it certainly seems like they are misleading customers, at the very least, likely an element of deception also.

 

Anyone thinking of taking a loan with LBL, even after reading the negative comments, should consider if they would walk into a pawn shop and hand over their jewellery or other personal items for cash to pay for anything but the most essential items. If not, walk away.

 

Just my 2.3p (2p + VAT at 15%).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...