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

Swift and charges / redemption


DMC65
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4835 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 would appreciate a bit of advice if anyone has the time.

We took a secured loan with swift in Aug 2006 for £10,750 to be repaid at £253.04 PM over 60 months.

Total repayable was just over £15,182.40

We've had our share of troubles and had a lot of missed payments but to date have paid back £12,500

and with the repayments we have agreed we will be clear of any arrears by August.

 

This is where it all goes a bit swift.

To date we have paid £12,131.96 our outstanding balance is £10,789.37. Which equates to £7738.93 of charges.

 

The sum of £10,789.37 has (this is not a settlement figure) after it.

 

We are now in the process of selling our house to go and rent meantime. Obviously we have to clear any secured loans on the property and, luckily we have more than enough equity to cover it. The questions I have abou swift though are as follows.

 

1. Would the charges still be classed as a secured against my property ?

2. If so, would I be able to ask for a redemption fee and pay less or have swift got another sneaky trick up their sleeve to combat this.

 

Obviously I'm looking to claim the excessive charges back, but will have to pay them if they are secured, but would appreciate any advice at all and any tips when dealing with this horrendous company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply 42man.

I will be trying to get my charges back, if they are secured against the property, but as my sale will hopefully be going through within a matter of weeks I really need to know what to do now.

I imagine any secured money owed will be paid straight from my solicitor to my first mortgage and swift.

If possible I would like to get some of it now by means of redemption but I'm not sure how this would work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...