Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

FSA Handbook


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4072 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

Pages 136 to the end show the Common Failures of mis selling PPI.

 

ps10_12 - FSA - PPI - 888.pdf

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure about those page numbers?! Just downloaded it and skimmed through; interesting stuff but page numbers finish some way before Page 136. :-(

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if you look at the counter at the top of the file and use that to locate 136 That is the open letter the common failings starts on page 137.

 

You will note, again, the counter at the top of the file will show there are 155 pages in total.

 

I am not using the page numbers on the actual document.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if you look at the counter at the top of the file and use that to locate 136 That is the open letter the common failings starts on page 137.

 

You will note, again, the counter at the top of the file will show there are 155 pages in total.

 

I am not using the page numbers on the actual document.

 

Thanks for getting back. I'm using a Mac and, for whatever reason, it doesn't display a counter at the top of the file but, no worries, I've located the relevant section now.

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interseting reading, especially from page 25 onwards for my particular claims. As I am expecting the standard bog off letter from egg card telling me they will not pay out claims over 6 years old. Will need to somehow send this to them as a response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

added in error

 

:lol: I just looked in to check if there was any corruption on the link, but it seems as though you have sorted it now :)

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: I just looked in to check if there was any corruption on the link, but it seems as though you have sorted it now :)

 

no it was absolutely fine in the end, the fault was with me :oops:

Edited by Massamum
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

to find this document on the internet google

 

fsa ps 10/12

 

....................and the page numbering is wonky...

 

for those of us that want to read more

 

 

google

 

cp10/6

 

and you get the view on march 2010 of the situation

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites

PAGES 15 & 16 of this earlier document make interesting reading

 

"We identified a common failing of not disclosing to the customer that the

term of the cover was shorter than the term of the credit agreement and the

consequences of such mismatch. Our view is that failing to disclose such a

16 CP10/6: Payment Protection Insurance complaints (March 2010)

mismatch and its financial consequences to the customer would not comply

with the Principles. From the introduction of ICOBS 6.4.9R(3) this would also

have been a breach of the rule."

 

this means the purchaser of PPI thought he was buying insurance for the length of the loan not just for 5 years :evil:r

 

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

AND ON PAGE 34

 

"Balance

3.10 The main objection from the industry was that the overall effect of the guidance

was unbalanced and unfair because it made it very difficult for firms to reject any

PPI complaint, even where the firm felt it had acted quite correctly at point of sale.

Three main critcisms were that:"

 

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

PAGE 54

 

Consumer Credit Act implications

We agree that the approaches give rise to some implications for the existing credit

agreement(s) under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA).

We contacted the Office of Fair Trading to understand the implications for firms in

this area and reached the following conclusions.

Where the PPI is sold alongside a loan, there are in fact two credit agreements.

One for the principal loan and a second to finance the optional PPI. The former

is debtor-creditor (d-c) and the latter is debtor-creditor-supplier (d-c-s). This is

irrespective of whether the creditor is also the supplier of PPI.

In CCA terms, where the PPI is sold alongside a loan, there are multiple agreements

within section 18(1)(a) CCA. Each part – the principal credit agreement and the

PPI credit agreement – would be treated as a separate agreement by virtue of

section 18(2). They may be documented together, subject to the Consumer Credit

(Agreements) Regulations 1983 (CCA Regulations). Regs 2(8) and 2(9) of the

current CCA Regulations allow for a common heading and signature box and

common statements of protection and remedies. Reg 2(7) requires an additional

form of consent.

If PPI is found to have been mis-sold, the remedy is generally to return the parties

to the position they would have been in had the PPI not been taken out. This should

lead to the cancellation of the PPI credit agreement and refund of monies paid by

the debtor. This is consistent with Article 15.1 of the new Consumer Credit Directive

which states that ‘where the consumer has exercised a right of withdrawal, based on

Community law, concerning a contract for the supply of goods or services, he shall

no longer be bound by a linked credit agreement’.

As the PPI credit agreement is separate (for CCA purposes) from the principal credit

agreement, it should be possible to cancel the former without affecting the latter.

Clearly though, if payments were made together as a single monthly instalment, the

amount of the instalment will need to be adjusted (as our approaches indicate). This

would not require a modification of the principal credit agreement. It would simply

be a consequence of cancellation of the PPI credit.

Even if the principal credit and PPI credit were treated as one agreement for CCA

purposes (which we do not believe would be the intended effect of section 18

CCA), it would be possible to modify the agreement to remove the PPI elements.

This could be done via a modifying agreement for section 82(2) CCA purposes. The debtor would have to agree (but we generally see no reason why he would not).

Alternatively, the creditor could simply refrain from collecting part of the payment

and from enforcing the relevant aspects of the agreement. This could be done as

a unilateral concession, although this would be less satisfactory from the debtor’s

point of view as it would not have the effect of amending the contract and in

theory the creditor could withdraw the unilateral concession at any time. It is better

(and clearer all round) to have a modifying agreement, signed by both parties, and

binding on both of them. At the very least the concession should be documented in

some durable way, such as a letter acknowledging it, given the potential for disputes.

Consequently, we do not see why our approaches discussed above should raise CCA

enforceability issues.28 However, a firm should take care in how it documents the

arrangements and what information it gives to the consumer.

Edited by FANTASY CHARGES

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hello I have just raised a thread called [Old Egg card 2001 now Barclaycard]

 

The above comment [Consumer Credit Act implications] seems to be along the lines of my current argument with Barclaycard.

 

Where if the Credit agreement if it is one agreement with PPI and in no way states that it is optional - does this mean that the credit agreement if it has the PPI cancelled - that the whole agreement has to be cancelled too, meaning that its a forced PPI agreement.

 

Is the above a correct interpretation of the above article/comment, thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello I have just raised a thread called [Old Egg card 2001 now Barclaycard]

 

The above comment [Consumer Credit Act implications] seems to be along the lines of my current argument with Barclaycard.

 

Where if the Credit agreement if it is one agreement with PPI and in no way states that it is optional - does this mean that the credit agreement if it has the PPI cancelled - that the whole agreement has to be cancelled too, meaning that its a forced PPI agreement.

 

Is the above a correct interpretation of the above article/comment, thanks in advance

 

I am not entirely sure of your question..

 

Are you asking, if there was PPI on an agreement where the PPI was not requested and there are no separate terms and conditions for the PPI - is the entire agreement unenforceable ?

 

Almost certainly the PPI would likely have been mis sold - as to whether the entire agreement is uenenforceable, I would think there would be a pretty good argument but it would need to be confirmed by others with more knowledge than me.

 

Just popped a link to your thread .. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?380981-Old-Egg-card-2001-now-Barclaycard

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...