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

Why you should NEVER use a PPI Reclaims Company


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3095 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

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=519a4338-60a7-49be-8ff1-28f070eca937#.UH0wHaFr1Ws.twitter

 

PPI reclaims soicitor LOST on every count.

 

Mrs Plevin’s claim therefore failed in its entirety.

 

Against this, Recorder Yip QC considered the conduct of Mrs Plevin’s legal representatives,

Miller Gardner.

 

Their costs, including a very significant ATE insurance premium,

amounted to some £320,000 by the time of trial as against a maximum claim value of some £5,000.

 

Despite the level of costs incurred,

 

Recorder Yip QC also found that Miller Gardner had failed to get to the bottom of the factual case,

this had caused the repeated amendments to Mrs Plevin’s claim and the eventual abandonment at trial of all but two of the heads of claim, and that there could be “no justification” for the way in which the claim had proceeded.

 

As against this background, Paragon had made a without prejudice offer to Mrs Plevin back in 2010 on a commercial basis simply to see an end of the litigation. Miller Gardner had rejected that offer and therefore did significantly worse at trial than could have been achieved two years previously.

 

Recorder Yip QC held that as a result, and given her “real concerns” over Miller Gardner’s conduct, it would be appropriate to order that Mrs Plevin pay Paragon’s costs on the indemnity basis in relation to the entirety of the action. This is the strongest order that a Court can make and is illustrative of the displeasure with which Miller Gardner’s conduct was regarded. It was clear from the amount in question as against the costs incurred that the litigation had been run only to benefit Mrs Plevin’s solicitors; and not to achieve the best result for her.

 

Generally, given the findings by the Court of Appeal in Harrison and Recorder Yip QC in Plevin, claimant solicitors now have little chance of successfully continuing with claims in relation to PPI mis-selling.

 

Further, the Courts are now very much alive to the fact that such claims cannot be regarded as being in borrowers’ best interests. The industry that has grown up around PPI should beware.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Ive had a few ppi claims that i claimed myself and done very favourably out of, im now getting the phone calls every day!

 

I accidently answered one and the 'information service' lady put me over to a specialist who tried telling me that it is now illegal to claim PPI yourself.....

 

MMMMMM smell a rat there, allegedly it was on the bbc and everything and i still have thousands owed to me, although they cant tell me who owes me....

 

So it seems that these companies are getting desperate, especially now people know they can do it themselves and keep all the money.

 

Dirty trick really isnt it!

 

Jamie

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi jamie

Partially true....the claims companies are under investigation as most are using the Ministry of justice name and Logo illegally.

 

Submitting your own claim does NOT guarantee that you will get all your money back as the vast majority of consumers are not aware that PPI earns the banks 8% interest per annum and it is unlikely in most cases that you will get that back unless you have the right legal process in place.

 

Barclays spoofed a friend for £6900 in PPI.

 

I estimated she would get back £9000 including the 8% interest per annum from 2005 to 2012...I got her back over £18000.

 

..The banks will even try to send money to clients' bank account ahead of a claim to try to make them sign and accept less than they are entitled to.

 

The extent of banking fraud is much more far reaching than people realise!

 

BTW I am not part of a claims management company but am involved in Financial Education...exposing the banks BIG TIME! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

we do do that here

 

 

our sheets detail everything.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

closed to prevent posting in a stickie information only thread dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3095 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...