Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • The CMA’s latest monitoring report on road fuel shows that prices at the pump have risen since late January, accompanied by above average margins and spreads.View the full article
    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
      • 160 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

Cpp Card Protection


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3694 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

Hi

 

When signing up for a Alliance and Leicester accout they automaticaly signed me up for CCP Card Protection, and i was unaware, a payment came out of the account befor i was able to transfer my wages ect so £70 annual fee went out then several charges totaling £175 pounds, i wrote to A&L explaining this had no reply and now notice the account is now in deafult but the balance iss £0

 

EXPERIAN:

NAME ADDRESS

DOB

ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER PLC CURRENT ACCOUNT

STARTED 21/07/09 OVERDRAFT BALANCE £0 SETTLED 07/03/08

STATUS HISTORY 3333222UU

FILE UPDATED 30/03/09

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

When signing up for a Alliance and Leicester accout they automaticaly signed me up for CCP Card Protection, and i was unaware, a payment came out of the account befor i was able to transfer my wages ect so £70 annual fee went out then several charges totaling £175 pounds, i wrote to A&L explaining this had no reply and now notice the account is now in deafult but the balance iss £0

 

EXPERIAN:

NAME ADDRESS

DOB

ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER PLC CURRENT ACCOUNT

STARTED 21/07/09 OVERDRAFT BALANCE £0 SETTLED 07/03/08

STATUS HISTORY 3333222UU

FILE UPDATED 30/03/09

 

Have you asked for your money back yet?

If not can you post the latest update or are you wanting to start a claim?

Very little information on what you want to do?

 

aa

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

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

Bank charge successes:

Halifax - Full settlement incl interest.

HSBC - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 75% of claim.

RBS - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 70% of claim.

2 ongoing claims for bank charges with HSBC with more to come. (Supreme Court ruling could have upset these claims) They did :mad:

PPI Successes

PPI 4 settlements on 9 loans. FOS involvement on 7 added on the 8 % Statutory interest another 30% to both.

2 claims settled in full with LV without FOS involvement.

2 claims settled in full with HSBC without FOS involvement

 

PPI Claims ongoing with:

Cap one Now with the FOS

Barclays. Paid up today 24/04/10 cheque received for over £4,500 and in the bank.

LTSB still have to decide on this as their SAR production was abysmal. Papers data mixed up documents missing etc

 

1 Complaint not upheld by FOS they said it was ICO issue. Complaint upheld by ICO. See this..

Post 290 from

***RBS PPI Claim Long fight but, WON***

 

Please do not PM me for advice as it may be sometime before I can respond.

 

Keep at them. Do not give way and do not accept all they tell you, they will delay and stall for as long as they can to prevent repaying you your mis-sold PPI.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

just wandering what i can do!

 

Firstly have a look at this.

 

Alliance & Leicester to pay £7 million fine for PPI failings

 

Check up to see if the dates on your card PPI match the dates that A&L were mis-selling.

 

To claim back your PPI you will need to obtain copies of your data ie Consumer Credit Agreement etc...see these links for template letters for a Subject Access Request.

Full SAR for ppi

 

Data Protection Act 1998 - Subject Access Request

 

You should request the following documents:

 

A true copy of your Consumer Credit Agreement with the Terms and Conditions that were applicable at the time you took the card.

 

Copies of all statements applicable to the card.

 

Copies of all correspondence that apply to you as a data subject ie letters, emails, faxes etc.

 

Copies of all recorded telephone calls or transcripts of the recordings.

 

A copy of the needs and wants/ customer duty of care questionnaire... here is an example.

 

http://wwwa.mbna.co.uk/insurance/files/CP0608_INSU_MB_LP_S.pdf

 

Copies of any notes made by any staff in their dealings with you.

 

Also have a look in these links for further help.

 

PPI - Some Notes for Claimants..

 

links within this one are loads more links here are a couple that may help..

 

For claims before 2005 and the FSA ruling from which campaign

How to tell if you’ve been mis-sold PPI

 

Quick check: were you mis-sold? - How to tell if you’ve been mis-sold PPI

 

THIS LINK IS IMPORTANT TO YOU ON RECLAIMING IT IS FROM 2001 FROM THE FOS

loan payment protection insurance and a quote from this link...

 

 

When determining whether a policy is suitable, a seller – whether a lender or an agent for the insurer – must obviously take into consideration any information the prospective policyholder volunteers. However, we do not consider the seller’s duty is limited simply to recording what the borrower discloses. It is only by asking questions that the seller can properly determine suitability. These questions cannot cover every aspect of a borrower’s personal position and should not be expected to do so. To paraphrase the ABI Statement, only those matters deemed to be relevant by the insurer should be the subject of questions.

 

Once you have all the data time to send a letter asking for your money back.

 

aa

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

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

Bank charge successes:

Halifax - Full settlement incl interest.

HSBC - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 75% of claim.

RBS - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 70% of claim.

2 ongoing claims for bank charges with HSBC with more to come. (Supreme Court ruling could have upset these claims) They did :mad:

PPI Successes

PPI 4 settlements on 9 loans. FOS involvement on 7 added on the 8 % Statutory interest another 30% to both.

2 claims settled in full with LV without FOS involvement.

2 claims settled in full with HSBC without FOS involvement

 

PPI Claims ongoing with:

Cap one Now with the FOS

Barclays. Paid up today 24/04/10 cheque received for over £4,500 and in the bank.

LTSB still have to decide on this as their SAR production was abysmal. Papers data mixed up documents missing etc

 

1 Complaint not upheld by FOS they said it was ICO issue. Complaint upheld by ICO. See this..

Post 290 from

***RBS PPI Claim Long fight but, WON***

 

Please do not PM me for advice as it may be sometime before I can respond.

 

Keep at them. Do not give way and do not accept all they tell you, they will delay and stall for as long as they can to prevent repaying you your mis-sold PPI.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

hi do i have to send a SAR as i have already got all the letters they have sent me and all statements. i would prefer to find out whty they took the £70 origionally CCP CARD PROTECTION PAYMENT, i never signed anything, surely a CCA would be better?

 

just trying to understand

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi do i have to send a Subject Access Request as i have already got all the letters they have sent me and all statements. i would prefer to find out whty they took the £70 origionally CCP CARD PROTECTION PAYMENT, i never signed anything, surely a CCA would be better?

 

just trying to understand

 

Got your PM. Yes you are correct. If you have all of the relevant paperwork statements letters etc that is fine but for the Consumer Credit Agreement you should send a request under section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1998 as here,

 

 

77. Duty to give information to debtor under fixed-sum credit agreement.

— (1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed-sum credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of [F5 £1], shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,— (a) the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor;

 

 

 

(b) the total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the debtor but remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due; and

 

 

 

© the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of determining the date, when each becomes due.

 

 

 

 

(2) If the creditor possesses insufficient information to enable him to ascertain the amounts and dates mentioned in subsection (1)©, he shall be taken to comply with that paragraph if his statement under subsection (1) gives the basis on which, under the regulated agreement, they would fall to be ascertained.

 

 

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to—

 

(a) an agreement under which no sum is, or will or may become, payable by the debtor, or

 

 

 

(b) a request made less than one month after a previous request under that subsection relating to the same agreement was complied with.

 

 

 

 

(4) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)— (a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and

 

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

 

 

(5) This section does not apply to a non-commercial agreement.Annotations:

Amendments (Textual)

F5

"£1" substituted (1.5.1998) in s. 77(1) by S.I. 1998/997, art. 3, Sch.

 

icon_closed_level.gif

[F6 77A Statements to be provided in relation to fixed-sum credit agreements

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed-sum credit— (a) shall, within the period of one year beginning with the day after the day on which the agreement is made, give the debtor a statement under this section; and

 

(b) after the giving of that statement, shall give the debtor further statements under this section at intervals of not more than one year.

 

 

(2) Regulations may make provision about the form and content of statements under this section.

(3) The debtor shall have no liability to pay any sum in connection with the preparation or the giving to him of a statement under this section.

(4) The creditor is not required to give the debtor any statement under this section once the following conditions are satisfied— (a) that there is no sum payable under the agreement by the debtor; and

 

(b) that there is no sum which will or may become so payable.

 

 

(5) Subsection (6) applies if at a time before the conditions mentioned in subsection (4) are satisfied the creditor fails to give the debtor— (a) a statement under this section within the period mentioned in subsection (1)(a); or

 

(b) such a statement within the period of one year beginning with the day after the day on which such a statement was last given to him.

 

 

(6) Where this subsection applies in relation to a failure to give a statement under this section to the debtor— (a) the creditor shall not be entitled to enforce the agreement during the period of non-compliance;

 

(b) the debtor shall have no liability to pay any sum of interest to the extent calculated by reference to the period of non-compliance or to any part of it; and

 

© the debtor shall have no liability to pay any default sum which (apart from this paragraph)—

(i) would have become payable during the period of non-compliance; or

(ii) would have become payable after the end of that period in connection with a breach of the agreement which occurs during that period (whether or not the breach continues after the end of that period).

 

 

(7) In this section ‘the period of non-compliance’ means, in relation to a failure to give a statement under this section to the debtor, the period which— (a)begins immediately after the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (a) or (as the case may be) paragraph (b) of subsection (5); and

 

(b) ends at the end of the day on which the statement is given to the debtor or on which the conditions mentioned in subsection (4) are satisfied, whichever is earlier.

 

 

(8) This section does not apply in relation to a non-commercial agreement or to a small agreement.]Annotations:

Amendments (Textual)

F6

S. 77A inserted (16.6.2006 for certain purposes and otherwise prosp.) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. 6 , 71(2) (with Sch. 3 para. 2); S.I. 2006/1508, art. 3(1) , Sch. 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hope this helps you out

aa

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

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

Bank charge successes:

Halifax - Full settlement incl interest.

HSBC - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 75% of claim.

RBS - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 70% of claim.

2 ongoing claims for bank charges with HSBC with more to come. (Supreme Court ruling could have upset these claims) They did :mad:

PPI Successes

PPI 4 settlements on 9 loans. FOS involvement on 7 added on the 8 % Statutory interest another 30% to both.

2 claims settled in full with LV without FOS involvement.

2 claims settled in full with HSBC without FOS involvement

 

PPI Claims ongoing with:

Cap one Now with the FOS

Barclays. Paid up today 24/04/10 cheque received for over £4,500 and in the bank.

LTSB still have to decide on this as their SAR production was abysmal. Papers data mixed up documents missing etc

 

1 Complaint not upheld by FOS they said it was ICO issue. Complaint upheld by ICO. See this..

Post 290 from

***RBS PPI Claim Long fight but, WON***

 

Please do not PM me for advice as it may be sometime before I can respond.

 

Keep at them. Do not give way and do not accept all they tell you, they will delay and stall for as long as they can to prevent repaying you your mis-sold PPI.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

this letter?

 

This letter is a formal request pursuant to s.77(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I require you to provide me with a true copy of the credit agreement relating to the above account, together with any other documentation the Act requires you to provide.

 

I expect you to comply fully and properly with this request, within the statutory time limit. You are reminded that should you fail to comply with my request, the provisions of s.77(6) will apply.

 

If it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA 1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor. In the case of an absolute assignment, you are a creditor as defined by s.189. If you contend that you purchased the rights but not the duties of any agreement, you are reminded that s.189 of the Act is clear that an assignment is of both rights and duties.

 

Your attention is drawn to ss.5(2), 3(b),6 and 7 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR).

 

I enclose a postal order in the sum of £1.00, which is the statutory fee. Note that these funds are not to be used for any other purpose.

 

If you are unable to comply fully and properly with this request, you should confirm this in writing at the earliest opportunity, and certainly within the statutory time limit for compliance, and return the fee.

 

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That will do nicely.

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

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

Bank charge successes:

Halifax - Full settlement incl interest.

HSBC - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 75% of claim.

RBS - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 70% of claim.

2 ongoing claims for bank charges with HSBC with more to come. (Supreme Court ruling could have upset these claims) They did :mad:

PPI Successes

PPI 4 settlements on 9 loans. FOS involvement on 7 added on the 8 % Statutory interest another 30% to both.

2 claims settled in full with LV without FOS involvement.

2 claims settled in full with HSBC without FOS involvement

 

PPI Claims ongoing with:

Cap one Now with the FOS

Barclays. Paid up today 24/04/10 cheque received for over £4,500 and in the bank.

LTSB still have to decide on this as their SAR production was abysmal. Papers data mixed up documents missing etc

 

1 Complaint not upheld by FOS they said it was ICO issue. Complaint upheld by ICO. See this..

Post 290 from

***RBS PPI Claim Long fight but, WON***

 

Please do not PM me for advice as it may be sometime before I can respond.

 

Keep at them. Do not give way and do not accept all they tell you, they will delay and stall for as long as they can to prevent repaying you your mis-sold PPI.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...