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

RBOS charges


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6529 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

:confused: Hello and help from Scotland.

 

My partner and I have both recently been released (last 18 months) from trust deeds after three years of repayments.

 

Due to a payment error we were requested by the trustee to send in three post dated cheques for £200 pounds each and these would be presented to the bank each month until the end of the deed.

 

Unfortunately a member of staff dealing with our payments sent all three cheques to the bank (RBOS) at the same time who subsequently processed the cheques and charged us three times for the unpaid cheques as there wasn't the money there to cover them.

 

My partner refused to pay the charges, stopped using the account and asked the trustee to help as it was their error, but they were unable to assist. Now 18months or so down the line they have added interest to the unauthorised overdraft and we are know being harrassed for payment of £120 by a letter requesting payment within 7 days or it will be passed to their collection dept.

 

We think we will go after them on previous charges but are not sure if we can if the cheques were for amounts larger than the bank charges ie £200 x3.

 

What can we do meantime.

 

Comments much appreciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, having read more into the site, I can now understand that the cheque/direct debit/standing order amount was unimportant, it is the actual charge for the unauthorised overdraft that is the relevant part ie £38 per item.

 

On the position of having automated threats for payment within 7 days, where do we go on this part as. Do we send a letter back stating the inabality to pay imediately?

 

Would we need to get this sorted prior to following on with a claim back on other previous charges?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...