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 
        • I agree
      • 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

Unfair bank charges


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4195 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

Today I received an automated call to say that a standing order had bounced.

 

My salary went into my account around 1am this morning, and over £1000 of standing orders were paid without any problem, however they have bounced 1 SO for £50 to my son's account. To add insult to injury, I changed the SO they have bounced using internet banking 2 weeks ago so that it would not be paid in December, but recommenced in January, so they should never have tried to make the payment today anyway! I know I definitely cancelled the original SO and set up a new one payable from 05/01/13 until 05/07/13. I checked and double-checked that the change was showing after I made the change.

 

Despite being on the phone to them for half an hour they insist that the SO is still set up to go out today and I am going to be charged £15 for bouncing the SO.

 

They have paid all my SO's every month on the 5th of every previous month, (my pay day), without any problems since I opened the account, including the one they bounced today. Their justification is that 'it's in the small print that the money for any SO must be in the account the day before the SO is due to go out'. I have never seen or been made aware of this clause. The Co-op have never bounced any other SO before even though they all go out the same day my wages go into my account. They allowed over £1000 worth of other SO's to be paid today, how can they set this precedent and still justify this charge?

 

:-x:-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I bank with the Coop and that is correct, the cleared funds for Direct Debits and Standing Orders must be in your account by midnight before they become payable (that is midnight tonight for payment tomorrow). You should have received a letter from the Coop telling you about this along with a statement around 18 months ago.

 

By paying your standing orders like they have they are taking a risk that your cleared funds will be available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...