This topic was closed on 03/05/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

Thanks for the help. I've had a couple of sullen emails from them confirming their postal address but they seem completely uninterested in trying to resolve this prior to legal action, which seems daft to me in the circumstances! I paid £52 + a bit more for delivery. Used direct bank transfer via Paypal. They're based in the Isle of Man but I've already pointed out to them this doesn't exempt them from complying with UK trading regulations ;-)

I'm still struggling to find any specific clauses in that legislation. In a nutshell I purchased an item on 18th April 2013. It was despatched on 19th April (a Friday) and delivered on 22nd April 2013. Yesterday (22nd April 2014) I contacted the seller to mention the electrical item had stopped working and their response was, "it has a 12 month warranty, that has now expired". I replied to point out I'd only had it for 12 months and that it had been faulty for some weeks before finally completely failing. It's clear from a seal on the inside of the pump that this wasn't properly put in place and has allowed water to leak in. It's just a bit of shoddy work really and they can probably claim it back from the manufacturer. Edited to add I spoke to consumer advice who said there is no legislation on warranty. The supplier website has a section on warranty and does not mention date. The Consumer advice service recommended I attack it from the angle of the being unfit for purpose via the sale of goods act.

It was a "buy it now".

Thanks rebel11. I can't find the word "warranty" anywhere in that document though, so maybe I'm looking for the wrong thing?

Does a "distance sale" warranty start from date of purchase or date of delivery does anyone know please? I can't find any legislation on this.

Blimey... what a phone call. I decided to try and just get to the bottom of the stupidity before going on to the ombudsman and called the A&L/Santander PPI complaints line. I did get through to a human being too! So... we started off by referring to their recent letter referring to the wrong loans (again) and she said that they would have been unable to find reference to any other loans I had in the past. She then asked what the account number was of the loan, I told her I didn't have it, but I'd sent in evidence of PPI and the experian report. She said they hadn't got those documents! After a fair few minutes of to and fro, we got to a point whereby I frustratedly asked if there was other information they held and mentioned the SAR I'd sent before. She said they'd have searched by customer account number and there had been nothing else. However, if I had the loan account number, that would help. Hang on... you said in an earlier letter that all records had been deleted and were gone? Now what's this? She went on to say that loans older than 6 years are stored by their account number, not the customer one (sounds like bullpoo to me) but in saying that, she'd admitted that they DID hold older information and that if I just provided the correct number, all would be revealed. I pointed out that they *must* have a link to customer account number on the loan and she said that they did, but it was only searchable by loan account number... again, sounds like rubbish, they'd have it all cross-referenced. I pointed out that this was quite a serious admission after sending back the SAR I'd sent stating there was nothing else on file and at this point her attitude changed. She then tried the angle of stating that as it was car finance it was a different department and I needed to call another number. I pointed out that she'd got the other car payment plan loan on her computer, so why not the one I was complaining about? It was exactly the same product! "Must be because it's an older loan" she said. Not sounding very convinced herself. She then asked if I had proof of PPI - again I pointed out I'd sent this in on the 1st July. She said their current case reference number was started on 6th July and then she made the mistake of referring to a letter I'd sent on the 1st July (earlier in the call she said she had nothing from that date) and I pointed out that if she had that letter, she had the proof. After a few minutes of fumbling around with "I'll just see if I can bring up the attachments" she admitted she had the scans I'd sent in and then asked which loan on the experian report I was complaining about (there was the old one with ppi and a newer one without). She then asked if I had proof of having made any payments on that loan! I pointed out the experian report with no missed payments on a settled loan... She then said, "I'll get your case reviewed then and get them to look at that loan instead of the other two". So quite where I've got to now, I'm not sure, but it appears that Santander are not being entirely honest in their dealings with PPI complaints to me.

Thanks IMS21, I appreciate your input and guidance.

The story so far. I had an old loan with A&L (Aug 2000) and was told I had to have PPI as it was a new kind of loan. I don't have any details of that loan any more. Since then I've had two further loans with them, neither with PPI. I do have records of those loans. I wrote to A&L and they told me that they only had details of two loans, neither with PPI. I wrote back saying there was another and they told me they only dealt with motor finance and I must be mistaken. I wrote again and insisted I was right, it WAS for motor finance and the loan was with them, they wrote back again telling me they only dealt with motor loans and obviously my loan was with someone else. I wrote again and included a copy of the secondary insurance sales letter they'd sent in October 2000 about my loan and they then replied saying that although the loan was with them (no apology of course!) they had no record of it any more as it had been paid off more than 6 years previously. I wrote again with an SAR as detailed above and they sent my cheque back with a letter saying they had disclosed all they had on record. I then discovered an old Experian credit report that showed the loan details and sent them a copy of that and as proof I had the loan and also the secondary sales letter saying that loan had PPI as proof that I had both a loan and a PPI agreement and asked them to send me a final response if they didn't want to deal with it as I could then go to the ombudsman. Their crowning glory ? They just responded and said I had no PPI on my loan with them, and as proof they included details of? Yup, you guessed it, the two other loans again... I cannot believe they can be so dense... I am now on my eleventh letter to them asking them for a "final response" on the proper loan so I can go to the ombudsman. I think that even though I don't have the loan agreement, I have proof of the loan (A&L letter AND the credit report showing the loan) and I have proof there was PPI on the loan (A&L letter) so I would think that on a "balance of probablilities" scenario, the ombudsman shouldn't have much problem with establishing that I had PPI and a loan...? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here?

Thanks for that. I have found the relevant SAR letter now. I originally wrote to them with this: And they just sent me details on two later loans I had with them. I rewrote several times telling them there was another loan account from late 2000 and sent them a copy of their letter to me referring to the PPI agreement I'd taken out as mentioned in my original post above, but they most recently wrote back saying "we have investigated your complaint fully and can confirm that we are unable to locate any account held by us with the details you have provided. I must point out that our company only deals with motor finance and therefore we are unable to assist further with this request." As this was a car purchase plan I'm chasing them about, it seems an odd way to end the letter. Would the SAR have more teeth than my original request or will they now just stick to the "we don't have that account any more" story do you think?

Hi there. I've tried searching for this circumstance and I can't find anything that seems to be a direct match. I am hopeless at searching though, so many apologies if this has been covered before. I had a car payment plan loan from Alliance and Leicester in September 2000. As this was a while ago, the application was phone based. I remember the phone call clearly as I got stressed out by the operative insisting I needed to take PPI out as it was a "new type of loan" even though I told him my employment circumstances meant I was fairly much self-employed and not really suitable for PPI. I know I had ppi on the loan as I still have a secondary sales letter from A&L congratulating me on taking out PPI on the loan and asking if I wanted to also take out some additional insurance (which I didn't). I wrote to the A&L (well, Santander now) and they've just brushed me off saying there is no record of this loan as it was paid off more than 5 years ago and they've deleted all records. This was a significant loan (£11K-ish) and the payments for ppi were substantial. Am I in a no-win situation here as I have no actual loan paperwork? I don't truly believe for a minute that there is no computer record of my loan with Santander but I have no way of proving this, obviously. I'm presuming I'm going to be unable to proceed here, but would appreciate any input that people may have just so I know for sure. Thanks.

A private ltd. company I used to be a director of claimed in the small claim action that my company shares were paid for by my director's loan account in 2001 and that I'd never paid the director's loan off. Now as I did have a director's loan account but it was £70 in credit from 2002 until I left in 2009 and had never had the share debt in there, I know this wasn't true and was prepared to argue this in court. As it happened, the judge immediately told the company it was statute barred anyway, so no argument was ever heard. The company has now written stating that, in fact, the shares were NEVER paid for and using standard regulations in table A, they've moved on to say if I don't pay for the shares now, they will be forfeited! So in a court document, they've claimed the shares were paid for by my DLA, then when the judge says it's statute barred they actually then change their minds, go back on what they wrote in the small claim action and now are pursuing me for the same money but using a different argument! Am I able to contact the OFT to complain about the company's actions, do you know please?

Marvellous... so basically the banks have carte blanche to carry on charging, all the time the customer is saying, "oi, excuse me, you shouldn't have charged me in the first place, stop whacking on extra charges now to make it even worse" and nobody can do anything about it, except go to court... ? That seems like money with menaces to me... I also have the impression that the FOS is completely in bed with the banks. The banks have to be proven to have committed cold-blooded murder before the FOS even slaps their wrist.

I ask as I'm arguing (full details in A&L thread) with the FOS about whether A&L should have stopped continuing to charge me (it was a stupid charge in the first place!) as soon as I started disputing the charge with them, rather than continue their idiotic charging policy that ended with them freezing the account when they managed to turn a few quid into a £400 overdraft... (I kid you not) all the time whilst I was telling them they were being daft and I disputed the charge? I maintain to the FOS that the bank charge is a debt and that therefore the OFT guidelines apply in that the bank should freeze charges whilst I dispute things with them. Anyone got anything legalese I can use please?

It's currently with an adjudicator. It's gone backwards and forwards a few times now, he's now gone off to consider their actions in light of the OFT guidelines for debt collection. I maintain that what the A&L were doing from the first charge was chasing me for a debt, which I was disputing. I'm probably wrong, legally, but he's gone off to consider the matter again.