Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4140 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

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • 3 months later...

I have this snippet saved in My Documents, but unfortunately I didn't note where it came from:

An overdraft is a debtor creditor agreement as defined under section 8 and 13 of the CCA and is running account credit as defined in section 10. This has high court case law - coutts vs sebastyn.

When they say it is not CCA, what they mean is that there is part v exemption from the CCA but,

-they still need to show the contractual arrangement set up with 30 days of the o/d

-they still need a valid default notice

-they still need a termination notice.

 

A current account is covered by the Banking Code (FSA) and does not offer credit facilities. An overdraft is a credit agreement and as such CCA.

 

This is my specialist area I've seen off HSBC and LTSB on this. They will try to tell you that CCA does not apply to an o/d this utter nonsense. What theyy mean is that they have the part v exemption. So a Subject access request requesting specifically the default and termination notices plus the letter they sent you within 30 days of setting up the o/d (which must include interest rate and conditions such as limit) will tell you if they can enforce it. But I would still start with a CCA for the o/d it is for them to prove part v exemption.

 

A CCA request applies to an overdraft until and unless they tell you in writing that it is Part V exempt. At that point they must provide all the documents under the determination for the overdraft to be enforceable else section 78(6) of the CCA applies.

 

Elsa x

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So many anomalies it's like an episode of Primeval.

 

To simplify in an analogy:

 

Royal Burgers of Scotland: Our burgers contain no salt whatsover!

Consumers: Yes they do! We can taste it, it's SALTY!!

Royal Burgers of Scotland. Nope.No salt.Definitely. Absolutely none. Salt free. Zilch.

 

6 months later...

 

Royal Burgers of Scotland announce they are reducing the amount of salt in their burgers...

 

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

It's a shame the judiciary don't take the same stance with the banks as they increasingly do with debtors in court..ignore the technical arguments and say

"Have you had the money??? Then pay it back!"

The cracks and corruption throughout the whole system seem to be widening.

Makes you want to disappear to a small island in the Hebrides and scupper the only boat...

 

Elsa x (Having one of "those" days!! LOL)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 5 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...