Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Another one. Apparently this has been hushed up for about three months. They're working through their majority quite fast with all the sackings. Not that they've done anything about Menzies yet but he sounds like a blackmail risk. Here's the original article.   Revealed: Tory MP allegedly demanded campaign cash to pay ‘bad people’ ARCHIVE.PH archived 18 Apr 2024 07:32:33 UTC  
    • and another one   MP Mark Menzies loses Tory whip as party investigates claims he misused funds "According to a source close to Mr Menzies, the MP had met a man on an online dating website and gone to the man’s flat, before subsequently going with another man to a second address where he continued drinking. He was sick at one point and several people at the address demanded £5,000, claiming it was for cleaning up and other expenses." The sum, which rose to £6,500, was eventually paid by his office manager from her personal bank account and subsequently reimbursed from funds raised from donors   Never mind losing whip - how about criminal charges   MP Mark Menzies loses Tory whip as party investigates claims he misused funds WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK The Fylde MP is alleged to have used campaign funds to pay off ‘bad people’ and cover medical expenses   ALSO According to the The Times, £14,000 given by donors for use on Tory campaign activities was transferred to Mr Menzies’ personal bank accounts and used for private medical expenses. The MP, who is one of Rishi Sunak’s trade envoys, is also said to have called his 78-year-old former campaign manager at 3.15am one day in December, claiming he was locked in a flat and needed £5,000 as a matter of “life and death”.   Hes supposed to use funding from Taxpayers and doners for a life of service, not funding a life of drink and debauchery Hope his parliamentary expenses are also investigated.   In fact, perhaps Mr Bates next role in life should be as an independent investigator of Parliamentary expenses?
    • He asked for that one, didn't he?
    • Trump was unable to make it through the first day of court without falling asleep on Monday, which sparked a whole host of jokes, memes and even a new nickname, 'Dozy Don'    
    • The shift to card and contactless technology in the past decade has been rapid - not just in Britain, but in all sorts of remote pockets of the world. This is yet a further sign of it.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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

PPI Insurance problem and regulation


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5368 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

Any help on this would be very much appreciated.

 

I have recently made a claim against a ppi policy for my car after I became ill and havent been able to work for the last few months. I was initially told by Lombard that I was covered but then I was later informed that I wasnt and apologised for the confusion. The reason - I had opted for the Silver cover and my policy would only pay out in this instance if it was Gold cover.

 

Problem is I was never informed by the Garage owner who acted as intermediary for Lombard and sold the policy to me that there were different levels of cover and the form was filled out by him and then signed by me.

 

The garage owner admitted to me verbally that he doesn’t know the various levels of cover and has never been told to explain these to customers however he will not put that in writing and appears to have told Lombard a different story now. Lombard disagree that I have been mis-sold this policy.

 

I have also since found out that the garage owner is not a registered insurance intermediary via the financial regulator, I am waiting on a response with regards the implications of being sold a policy by someone who isn’t registered.

 

Can anyone make suggestions regarding my situation.

 

Does anyone know if insurance can be sold by someone who isn’t registered and an insurance intermediary?

 

Many Thanks

Pancho

Link to post
Share on other sites

have you found out what the difference is between silver and gold cover? What exactly does silver cover do for you?

 

The problem you have here is that most PPI is sold on a non-advice basis where you're provided with a policy summary with key features and benefits and details of any significant or unusual exclusions or limitations. You're supposed to decide for yourself if it suitable for you.

 

I think (but am not certain) that this means that the garage owner doesn't need to be registered as an insurance intermediary as you're not buying the cover from him, but from Lombard.

 

If you didn't receive the policy summary you could have been mis-sold the product as you had no way of understanding if it was suitable for your needs - it clearly wasn't.

 

I'm concerned that the garage owner filled in the form though as you are supposed to do that for yourself. Your best solution is the Financial Ombudsman Service but you really should contact Lombard first to give them a chance to comment and hopefully do something to help you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for that Ricky, I should have mentioned that I have been in touch with Lombard who deny any mis-selling. Initially they told me I was covered but later told me they had made a mistake and my cover (Silver) wasnt sufficient.

 

Having looked into the types of cover there are large differences in cover but my point is that I wasnt made aware at the point of sale of the different types of cover, that appears to have been decided for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...