Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Amex Referral Fees - No Longer Charged


sweetjane
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5190 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

This is good news for us and hopefully others out there. The referral fee was charged by UCA.

 

'I confirm that the outstanding balance is £****. The previous balances quoted were by External Agencies which included their referral fees of £617.87. This amount has been refunded. We no longer charge referral fees.’

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Is that because these fees are in some way illegal? An unfair term perhaps?

 

I don't want to appear cynical but this particular firm is not noted for benevolence toward debtors, if they are no longer charging this fee my feeling is that it is because they fear some piece of legislation.

 

If anyone has an opinion on which piece of legislation I'd be interested to hear it - as I'm currently defending a claim for an amount which does include a whopping great referral fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi dp77,

 

I've havn't seen legislation, but someone pointed me (sorry, forget who) at the OFT guidelines which I've used (outcome not known).

 

(n.) The Claimant inflated the value of their claim it that:

 

 

(i.) the Particulars of Claim show an amount of £[] identified as "File Referral Charge". As well as there being no Agreement to provide for this, it is disproportionate and is also an Unfair practice as per the OFT Guidelines on debt collection Guidance.

-------------------------------

Charging for debt collection

 

 

2.9 Charges should not be levied unfairly.

 

 

2.10 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

a. claiming collection costs from a debtor in the absence of express contractual or other legal provision

b. misleading debtors into believing they are legally liable to pay collection charges when this is not the case, for example, when there is no contractual provision

c. not giving an indication in credit agreements of the amount of any charges payable on default

d. applying unreasonable charges, for example, charges not based on actual and necessary costs

e. applying charges which are disproportionate to the main debt.

-------------------------------

 

 

uteb

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's useful, thanks.

 

Are these guidelines available on an OFT website?

 

My alleged agreement does contain a term which says something about being able to recover the costs of a default, I can post the exact wording if necessary.

 

Am still keen to hear if anyone thinks claiming this as an unfair term might fly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...