Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
    • As already mentioned freely available "credit scores" are fairly useless. All lenders have their own "credit scoring" system, that for obvious reasons they don't divulge. And they're "scored" differently to the freely available ones. As soon as they could, we've always encouraged our two children to use credit cards responsibly... Pay off in full, etc, to generate good history. It's paid off. At quite young ages, they have both obtained loans for cars, mortgage and their credit card limits are through the roof. Personally, I have shifted debt around a lot on credit cards (even financed a house purchase once at 0% 😉) and I've only ever been refused a credit card once, sorry twice by the same company, over many years. They must have something very different in their lending criteria. You're a tight one, Mr Branson.
    • Hi DX - quick question, what is the bank likely to do when they get my letter of change of address ? also what is the worst they can do? thanks J1L
  • 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

PPI(miss-selling when its not miss-selling)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3151 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

Hello everyone,

 

I would like to ask, all you out there, who are claiming back PPI on the grounds of miss-selling, this question.

 

Did this premium(PPI) just appear on your statements, maybe it did, maybe it didn't.

 

This story is for those of you who's PPI just one day suddenly appear on your statements, without having spoken to any one from the bank or credit card company about wanting PPI on the account.

 

My story goes like this, long before PPI became generally known for what it's worth, back in 2007 i complained about my PPI on my credit card concerning the previous years.

 

The company at the time(LV), investigated, found in my favour and paid me out in full and final settlement, a happy ending. The PPI was cancelled and REMOVED from the account.

 

Like everything nowadays, my credit card was later taken over(GOLDFISH), Goldfish without any authority from me added PPI for a second time after i had cancelled my first PPI, this time without seeking any consent from me.

 

In the meantime, Barclaycard took over my credit card.

 

Now here's where it gets technical, because of who i am(cannot disclose my previous or present employer), i knew straight away that this was fraud, theft to be honest, my complaint to the bank was that payments of an unlawful nature had been taken from my service account.

 

It's straight forward, because i had already cancelled and received a payout on the PPi, I noticed these deductions being made under the disguise of PPI, i knew straight away that something unlawful had happened.

 

In conversation with a bank employer, they admitted that Goldfish was renowned for attaching PPI without permission.

 

However the complication for me is that Barclaycard can not comprehend what i am telling them, for so many years they are under the impression or should i say, they like to think, they are dealing with a miss-selling complaint.

 

This is not the case with me.

 

I just wonder how many people are out there who could swear on oath, that they too never requested PPI yet PPI is on their statements.

 

After all, how can you miss-sell something when you do not speak(write/request) to anybody, isn't that what miss-selling is, advising the customer wrongly(misleading) on the policy.

 

Anyway, let me know, if your one of those customers who didn't speak to anyone about PPI or request it or indeed cancelled a PPI just to have another just pop up.

Edited by roksee
Link to post
Share on other sites

PPI is not fraud or theft.

 

 

if its been missold

 

 

get the statements via an SAR

 

 

and do the normal spreadsheet/FOS CQ/Cover letter and reclaim it.

 

 

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

Dx100uk,

 

Sorry, i have just re-read my post and can see the point where you misunderstood what i am saying.

 

Let me put this another way.

 

Tell me, if a bank places onto your account PPI without any consent from you, nor has it spoken to you, is this miss-selling or is it a case of theft.

 

For your information i have made changes to my original post so that you can better understand what i am saying.

 

I do apologise for not making my post clearer, but if i opened your account and took money from it(lets not talk about the safeguards in place, hyperthetically, if i took money without you giving me consent, would not that be theft)

 

try not to use the word PPI, i have only used it because thats what is on the statement.

 

This is why banks are ripping people off, because of the miss-understanding concerning their actions,

 

dishonestly appropriates property with the intention of permanently depriving someone of it, is theft

 

dishonestly(no authority,consent, didn't speak to me)just did it

 

appropriates(took a sum from my service account)

 

intention of permenantly depriving(placed it into their operating account, with the knowledge that i was not getting it back)

 

Where is the miss-selling, it just appeared.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tell me, if a bank places onto your account PPI without any consent from you, nor has it spoken to you, is this miss-selling or is it a case of theft.

 

It can be both. On the regulatory side, that would be a case of mis-selling. On the criminal side, it could amount to a fraud or kindred offense. The reason it can come under the mis-selling heading is because seeking consent to add the policy was a requirement.

 

The trouble is that no one really knows how the PPI came to be charged again after you had previously cancelled it.

 

One potential cause is that when your card transferred, something went wrong and the fact that you had previously complained and cancelled the policy was not carried across.

 

Another thing that can happen is that when accounts transfer, paperwork is sent out for the individual to sign and the PPI element is not particularly clear. For example, it may have required you to opt out rather than opt in. This is a regulatory issue rather than a criminal one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

mm69

Thank you for your comments, it is a rather interesting arguement, but(you knew this was coming), the deduction of monies started some time after i had cancelled the PPi, there was never any concern that a mistake like what you have mentioned occured, so any policy or direction would never had been carried over.

 

Now to complicate matters, for a total of 15 months, my statements were sent to the wrong address, same road name, same house number but a different postcode, Barclaycard have acknowledged this but have never given me a complete answer, this as you know is a breach of the Data protection Act.

 

I didn't want to mention it initially because this would have caused confusion, but along with my intial complaint of theft, which i can prove in a court of law, the fact of the matter and the crooks of it, there has never been any consent, Barclaycard do not have any written signature from me nor have i spoken to any member of the bank.(ignorance of the law is no excuse)

 

Don't forget i was paid out,

 

My Initial question was this, who placed that particular PPI onto my account, whether the arguement is "no one really knows how that PPI came about", well it came about unlawfully, thats my arguement, i can prove that.

 

We have a operator that accessed my account, viewed my details, realised that there was no PPI present at the time(probably totally unaware that i personally had cancelled the PPI some time previously) so to generate more cash for their bank, placed onto my account a request to obtain a sum of money, commonly refered to as PPI, knowing far to well that at the time of this operation, they(the employer) did not have a consent that they were refering from and simply under the impression that should it be discovered they could use the arguement of miss-selling.

 

The problem with my circumstances is that i was well aware of the history of this account and when it happened, i knew something was a miss.

 

This is my concern, how many people have had PPI placed onto their account without their knowledge and are now being told oh its simply miss-selling. Like i have said surely miss-selling can only happen, when there has been some dialogue at least between the account holder and the card supplier, if there has been no dialogue, then the action carried out by the bank is unlawful, a criminal activity. I see it all the time, thats why i know.

 

Now what i have just said may not pertain to everyone.

 

I know its theft because of what i do(like my intial post), i am not at liberty to discuss my employement, but no one has told me i cannot talk about it.

Edited by roksee
Link to post
Share on other sites

In answer to your question, there are many people who have had PPI added to their account(s) without their knowledge or consent, hence the huge bill for redress which the banking industry faces.

 

There are many stories in the CAG PPI forums which bear testament to this.

 

Sadly there have been no criminal investigations into this matter (as far as I am aware) and certainly no criminal proceedings brought against any corporate body.

 

This all comes under the banner of a civil matter rather than criminal until and unless such a time comes when the authorities decide to prosecute for a crime.

 

In the meantime people will and should continue to get their reclaims in to get their money and appropriate compensation back.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

who what when where why, is the key, it maybe cryptic, but anywhere, thank you all for your replies, i have read and digested them all, you are all a font of knowledge, keep up the good work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

who what when where why, is the key, it maybe cryptic, but anywhere, thank you all for your replies, i have read and digested them all, you are all a font of knowledge, keep up the good work.

 

Eh?

 

Not sure what you are after.

 

Have you looked at the cases in the PPI forum? If not then that is the area to be reading.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this argument is it is pretty well impossible to prove one way or the other. If most of the people complaining has questioned the PPI when it first appeared on their statements then they'd be within their rights to expect answers. But the vast majority have had the product for several years before claiming they never asked for it. Banks are obliged under the DPA to destroy information when they consider they are unlikely to have any further use for it and how long to keep it is a tricky balancing act.

 

In that instance it becomes virtually impossible to determine whether they are correct, or whether they have just forgotten about it, or whether they are making it up. I have had some personal experience in this sector and have seen any number of people swear they never asked for the product, only for a call recording or similar to turn up proving they did. I even recall one person who swore he had never asked for his PPI and then when the signed paperwork was provided, turned round and said "oh yes I remember now, they told me it was compulsory".

 

If PPI was added without your request and you really want answers it is best to pursue it straight away. Mind you, it is doubtful you would get anywhere, would probably just be dismissed as an "admin error".

Link to post
Share on other sites

In answer to your question, there are many people who have had PPI added to their account(s) without their knowledge or consent, hence the huge bill for redress which the banking industry faces.

 

I can't say I fully agree with this. The reason being summed up by Hortz:

 

people swear they never asked for the product, only for a call recording or similar to turn up proving they did.

 

Which is something I have seen too.

 

In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that genuine cases of people never knowing they had PPI attached are in the minority. The biggest uphold reasons would be down to, I'd suggest: policy costs (and this heading encompasses a number of individual issues) and suitability* (again, this heading includes a number if issues).

 

What you would be left with would be a narrow band of cases where consent really is in issue. And with these, you'd have a tough job proving a crime had taken place.

 

*I don't mean suitability in the sense of advised sales either. I mean the word in a more general sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MM69, i can prove it, i do know what i am speaking about, anyway just a little quiz for you guys, i was speaking to a Barclaycard person this evening who was making me aware of one or two things when she said in passing "we are only concerned with miss-selling", bingo, my mind went into overdrive, so here is the quizz

 

(Q1)my account long standing created approximately 2003, in 2007 i made a complaint of miss-selling to liverpool victoria who then run the card, this complaint was looked into and i was awarded approximately £1500 in total. PPI was then removed from my card.

 

was this an act of miss-selling yes or no

 

(Q2) in 2008 PPI appeared on my statements.....There was no consent given nor was consent sought.(the clue is I didn't request it, i have cancelled a previous PPI)

 

There is not in existance any contract, recorded conversation or any other implied contractual consent of any manner( i can prove that)

 

is Q1 or Q2 miss-selling

 

I know that this sounds too far, but i have used my working skills to research this

 

I stopped paying my card in protect in 2008, i have not paid off anything todate.

 

I have had one telephone conversation with mercers debt collection agency in 2010(one letter received which i responded to), they have said once i explained that i would come after them if they were saying they are taking over the debt, they are having nothing to do with it, i explained who i was and told them that i considered it an act of theft, they accepted my story because they have refered it back to barclaycard.

 

i have not been threatned with court action, because a court would find in my favour, i know this sound bizarre, but i have found a flaw, in the proceedure dealing with PPI.

 

Now you know about the 15 months where my statements were being sent to a third party due to the wrong address, here is another question, if for that length of time, my address was on their system even with this incorrect postcode, question.

 

(Q3) would that address(house number correct, street name correct, area correct but with an incorrect postcode) be placed on my credit file.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1&2 are mis-selling.

 

 

3 go look!

 

 

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

3 go look, ?

 

these post's are making me laugh, if my intial complaint was a complaint about miss-selling, how can number 2 be miss-selling.

 

It appears that some of you, have misunderstood the concept of miss-selling, which is the following:-

 

"The ethically questionable practice of a salesperson misrepresenting or misleading an investor about the characteristics of a product or service"

 

Since i was not misrepresented by a salesperson or mislead, there is no miss-selling, the whole concept of the banking industries practise to solve their own doing has mislead you guys into a false sense of justice.

 

Anyway dx please explain to me how someone simply placing onto an account without consent or ever speaking to the customer can ever be considered for miss-selling.

 

Please look at the definition of theft, then re-evaluate what you know.

 

I have been claiming back money for myself and others for some 10 years now, my success rate is 100 percent.

 

I know i am going to get flack, but before you do, please tell me how that salesperson can have miss-sold me a product without telling me about it.

 

I am waiting. also consider unsolicited items.

 

But like i said this example will not have occured with everyone, its a teaser i know, but i am right.

 

Don't forget a court of law deals with matters of law, where as a tribunal or regulatory body deals with erroneous procedures.

 

If any wrong doing occures then those findings are refered to the national fraid squad for criminal procedures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why come to cag and ask for advise

when you have a pre-conceived conclusion already.?

 

 

its not theft or fraud, granted they've taken it without your permission.

 

 

but they'll have an excuse, or admin error

or the account/card was upgraded and as you didn't reply to our letter

we did it by default.

 

 

no good keep ging on about criminal stuff.

its a civil matter

 

 

and the PPI mis-selling schemes/rules by the FOS/FCA etc etc

are there to deal with it

 

 

I'd suggest you use the tools provided to the consumer

rather than tools that are a fantasy in your mind.

 

 

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

 

"The ethically questionable practice of a salesperson misrepresenting or misleading an investor about the characteristics of a product or service"

 

That is a definition. But included in that would be instances where consent was not given or sought.

 

Don't forget a court of law deals with matters of law, where as a tribunal or regulatory body deals with erroneous procedures.

 

If any wrong doing occures then those findings are refered to the national fraid squad for criminal procedures.

 

I am not sure what you are getting at here. But when a policy is found to have been mis-sold, there is no automatic referral to any law enforcement agency.

 

Don't forget, it you allege fraud or theft, you are going to have to prove dishonesty to a criminal standard. It's pretty much a non starter.

 

There has been a finding that there was an issue in the way many policies was sold. There was also (just like with any product) some admin errors - these things happen. There's an established route to put these things right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
Dx100uk,

 

 

dishonestly(no authority,consent, didn't speak to me)just did it

d.

 

For some reason everyone is trying to label everything as a criminal offence, civil remedies are much more obtainable by the ordinary person. The standard of proof is easier and the payment of damages is well defined, I cannot see why anyone should seek to pursue a criminal COA TBH.

 

I noticed this on this post it is incorrect here is the definition of dishonest from the theft act.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/2

 

“Dishonestly”

 

(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—

(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or

(b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or

©(except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

 

The highlighted parts are the problem as far as a criminal action is concerned. The plaintiff or the CPS would have to prove that to a standard of beyond reasonable doubt, the defendant did not believe these things. Very difficult indeed.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

OOps just noticed tis is an old thread, still I eil leave the post anyway, someone may find it interesting ###########

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...