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

Egg - again - vs wjms


wjms
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5283 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

Just when I thought it had gone quite quiet on the Oef front, I got a response to my complaint. Since my scanner is currently up the spout, here's the text:

 

Dear wjms,

 

Re Your Egg Account CCA/L xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

 

We acknowledge receipt of your letter of complaint dated (sometime in June) and we apologise for the delay in responding.

 

We note that you have alleged that we have failed to comply with section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 by failing to include all of the terms prescribed by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreement) Regulations 1983 (the "Agreement Regulations") on the basis that the credit limit is described as the "Approved Limit". This allegation is incorrect. The form of agreement used by Egg contains all of the relevant information prescribed both by Schedule 1 and by Schedule 6 of the Agreement Regulations. Approved Limit is specifically defined as the amount you can borrow from time to time on the account and is therefore clearly understandable. There is no requirement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to use a particular term or phrase when describing the amount of credit. The description of the credit limit complies with paragraph 8(b) of Schedule 1 of the Agreement Regulations.

 

Given the respose to the complaint outlined above, your credit agreement is not irredeemably unenforceable as you appear to allege. Accordingly, we shall continue to apply our normal procedures to your account.

 

Your letter refers to paragrap 13.6 of the Banking Code and asserts that the amount owed by you is 'in dispute' and alleges that this 'dispute' prevents us from taking any action to enforce debts owed to us by you under your credit agreement and prevents us from passing on information relating to you to credit reference agencies. We trust that, in light of the above responses to your complaint, you will appreciate that there is no dispute as to the amount owed to us by you. We shall therefore continue with our normal processes in relation to your account.

 

In circumstances where you have borrowed money under a valid and enforceable credit agreement, you will appreciate that our taking reasonable steps to seek repayment in accordance with that credit agreement cannot be improper or constitute a form of harassment.

 

We hope that this letter fully clarifies our position and draws this matter to a close. This letter constitutes our final response. If you remain dissatisfied with our response, you should refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service within six months of the date of this letter. A copy of the FOS's explanatory leaflet is enclosed for your information.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

SIGNATURE

 

Michelle Hood etc

 

Phew. That took a couple of minutes to type in.

 

I have put in a complaint to the FOS as they suggest, and also now sent them a letter asking for a copy of their version of the CCA since it obviously differs from my copy of the original one from 1999! I enclosed a pound and sent the request in line with 78(1) CCA 74 - I realise that this is somewhat deprecated by certain forum gurus, but since I have the customer's copy in original here (although not signed) don't see what I have to lose by it.

 

I would really welcome any thoughts about both the contents of their letter and the way forward.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

wjms

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

OK, well a couple of weeks later and the first reply came in, from AaRrseCo (Europe) Ltd:

Dear (wjms)

 

We are writing in response to your recent correspondence.

 

Please note AaRrseCo (Europe) Ltd is a debt collecting "agent", acting in good faith on the instructions received from a "disclosed" principal, namely Egg Banking Plc. We are therefore authorised to write to you in connection with the above matter and to instruct Solicitors in contemplation of Court Proceedings where we consider it appropriate to do so. Please note there has been no "assignment" of the debt from Egg Banking Plc to AaRrseCo (Europe) Ltd.

 

We have contacted our client and they have confirmed that their Customer Relation's Office rejected your complaint. We are instructed that the above balance remains outstanding and must be paid. Your payment should be sent directly to this office. Please ensure your payment is made apyable to AaRrseCo (Europe) Ltd and clearly wirte your reference number 123456 on the reverse, or htis may delay it being allocated to your account. Alternatively you can telephone us to make a payment by debit or credit card.

 

If we do not receive your payment within the next 14 days, this account will be passed back to our solicitors for further action.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

J Turner

 

Sent them back an e-mail stating that the matter was still in dispute (waiting for CCA 78 (1) copy), and with the FOS. Please don't write any more!

 

Next morning there's post from Egg:

 

To summarise, acknowledges receipt of my CCA Request, but asks for proof of address as the one I gave is different to the one on their records - Doh, I corrected their spelling mistake on my town's name, the rest is the same...

 

Sent e-mail back telling them this, and also refusing to send them something when they have been happily sending mail to this address for the past few months.

 

Copies of their correspondence and my answers scanned and e-mailed to the FOS for their file...

 

So, still ongoing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya there,

 

I got almost the very same letter from there, Apart from a few bits. But I am sending them back a nice little letter as they are saying that it is a well bit knowledsge of law that they can use " approved limit" when thye quite obviously can't. As many say that aren't just going to say "ok your right, don't worry about we will leave you alone now". But I am in the same boat. They haven't sent it to a DCA yet, but no doubt will. Let's just see what they say to my letter.

 

Good luck and hope you get things sorted.

:wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...