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

bobtheb v morgan stanley **WON**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6413 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

sent MCOL 6/10 561.66 . 295 charges +266.66 interest

+105.14 8%

+80.00 court fee = 746.80

 

 

Now had a letter saying because payments go FIRST to fees charges etc they cant agree with my interest calculations. Has anyone else encountered this argument?Ive not come across it in 10 other claims:confused:

:grin:amount WON so far £15,021.27(12 claims):D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone any ideas on this ,they are basically saying that as charges are paid off first there is virtually no interest to pay:mad:

:grin:amount WON so far £15,021.27(12 claims):D

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Bong this is what they wrote !! The nature of our payment hierarchy, as detailed in our Terms and Conditions , clearly states that any payment made to your account is first set off against any fees or charges applied to your account.The interest per default fee is therefore calculated by reference to the amount of the fee,the number of days between it being charged to your account and the date of your next payment and the annual interest rate applicable to your card expressed as a daily rate(in pence)

Our calculations show that the amount of interest charged to your account stands at £1.14

 

My calculations using Vampiress's magnificent spreadsheet comes to £174.72

:grin:amount WON so far £15,021.27(12 claims):D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand it. If you give me the first line of whats in your spreadsheet I don't mind trying it out for you to see what interest figure I get so we can see if it tallies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive tried it on an original spreadsheet and also a Google one and they agree,but they work on the principle that the fees and charges are paid off last.Morgan Stanley are saying that they pay off charges first(the only one as far as I can see ,among the credit card companys)

:grin:amount WON so far £15,021.27(12 claims):D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got their terms and conditions here but they are quite confusing.

 

they say payments are applied in the following order

 

1. interest on transactions (ie purchases)

2. then the transaction

3. any fees relating to transaction

4. all other fees and charges are paid off after the interest on the first transaction charged at a non-preferential rate

 

does this help?

Link to post
Share on other sites

tbh, it was me who numbered them 1 - 4 like that, but they are written in that order and I can't work out if it means that 4 is paid after 1 and before 2. I've never seen an agreement worded quite like it. I don't know if I'm confusing the issue so perhaps you'd better take a look at them yourself. they are also on the website Morgan Stanley : Main

 

I wish you luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive read somewhere on here ,if its ambiguous,it should work in the consumers favour:confused:Although I think the only way thiis could be interpreted,is charges are after interest (on your normal transactions) is paid:rolleyes:

:grin:amount WON so far £15,021.27(12 claims):D

Link to post
Share on other sites

What order they apply your payments to different items is irrelevant. The fact is that the charges are unlawful, they deceived you into paying them, had the charges not been applied, your payments would have reduced your balance further, eg.

 

Statement £100 of which £20 is a charge. You pay £50 and are left with a balance of £50 which they charge interest on. Had they not applied the charge the remaing balance would have been £30 thus accumulating proportionally less interest.

 

Hope this helps. Koko

Link to post
Share on other sites

The relevant sections of the Morgan Stanley Card Terms and Conditions

 

 

Allocation of payments

 

F. We will apply payments we receive first to interest on a Transaction, then to the amount of the Transaction itself in the following order -

 

1.Balances to which promotional rates apply,

2.Balances to which promotional rates do not apply, or no longer apply, starting with Balance Transfers/Purchases, followed by Cash Advances.

 

See Condition 3.5 of the Card Terms and Conditions for full details.

 

 

Morgan Stanley Card Conditions

 

spacer.gif3. Payments and Interest Charging

 

spacer.gif3.1 We will not charge interest on any Purchase shown on your current statement if you pay in full the Statement Balance shown on your current statement by the Payment Date. If you pay in full the Statement Balance shown on your current statement by the Payment Date but you did not pay in full the Statement Balance shown on your last statement by the Payment Date, we will charge interest on each Purchase shown on your last statement from the relevant Transaction Date until you have paid the amount you owe us in full.

 

 

spacer.gif3.2 We charge interest on..

 

Cash Advances, Balance Transfers and Credit Charges from the relevant Transaction Date,

 

Account Cheques from the date the Account Cheque is given to us for payment, and

 

any other amounts payable under this Agreement from the date on which such amounts are charged to the Account;

 

in each case until you have paid the amount you owe us in full.

 

spacer.gif3.5 We will apply your payment in the following order to all amounts due in relation to your last statement, before moving to Transactions that have been made but have not yet appeared on your statement.

 

First we will apply your payment to pay off Special Transactions...

 

Next, we pay off any other Transactions (including Special Transactions to which preferential interest rates no longer apply) -

 

a starting with Balance Transfers/Purchases,

b followed by Cash Advances.

 

If you have more than one Transaction within either of these categories, then we will apply your payment to them in the order in which we added them to your Account.

 

We apply your payment first to the interest on, then any insurance premium relating to, a particular Transaction, then to the amount of the Transaction itself and then to any fee relating to that Transaction. All other fees and charges are paid off after the interest on the first Transaction that is charged at a non-preferential rate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kokomar yes I understand your point,but if they pay the charges first ,from each payment ,the days interest is due ,are not very many(they have kindly worked this out for me!!and if you pay on time the interest is very small:mad:)

:grin:amount WON so far £15,021.27(12 claims):D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi bob, while we're waiting to see if zoot will comment I have been wondering some more about what koko said. It seems to make sense that if (if being a very big IF) your payments have gone first to pay off charges, then (assuming you have not cleared the outstanding balance), the money that was used to pay charges has not been applied against your purchases and the purchases are accruing more interest than they would if the charge hadn't been made. Therefore I think you wouldn't be claiming interest on the charges but excess interest on the purchases. Afterall the interest has accrued somehow and if not on the charges it must be the purchases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi good news, just spoken to Victoria Maschio ,in the Law Division,on the phone.Offer of full amount in the post today(After speaking to her superiors!):D

I quoted her their terms ,off she went and then phoned me back with the offer.

I will await their letter with bated breath:eek:

:grin:amount WON so far £15,021.27(12 claims):D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bob and Bong (sounds like some sort of animated comedy duo!)

 

tbh, it was me who numbered them 1 - 4 like that, but they are written in that order and I can't work out if it means that 4 is paid after 1 and before 2.[/QUOTE]

 

I think this is right. The charges are applied after the interest on the transaction but before the transaction. This means that you will actually pay the charges earlier than you may have thought. Although you can then claim the statutory interest from an earlier date which may go some way to balance it out.

 

Hope this helps

 

Zoot

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...