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
      • 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

PPI is a scam


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2569 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

 

Reclaimed PPI from Barclaycard never asked for it or knew of it, in a nutshell card balance was £1500 without PPI should have been £400, received a payout of £1100 on my £495 paid to PPI.

 

However this payout was for the interest of around £1100 that should never had accrued but for PPI. money I had to pay extra, so got this back all is well.

 

However my card balance stays at £1500 so they can snatch it all straight back and in effect I am duty bound to pay it all again at a high rate of interest.

 

With this redress principle are the Banks actually paying anything back at all. as if £1100 should never of been there why is it still.

 

If I had used the £1100 to pay off my card balance I would be paying what I have already paid for via my £495. so paying a debt that only was there due to PPI added without my knowledge.

 

This is a [problem] of epic proportions this refund lark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well no its not

If you have a £1500 debit bal

Then its only notional as you've not physically paid it have you!!

 

So likewise you've not actually paid £1100 PPI have you....!!

 

So your debit bal should be £495.

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

How the Great PPI [problem] works

 

A is put on a PPI plan without his knowledge.

 

Over 5 years he pays £500 in premiums Interest on his credit card raises this to £1100.

 

A applies for a refund his card is £1100 more than it should be.

 

The firm pays him £1100 as they admit the error.

 

A can pay the £1100 to get his account right or Leave it at £1100 more on a high rate.

 

If A pays £1100 he is paying £600 more than if no PPI.

 

If he pays nothing his account is £1100 more.

 

The banks £600 interest is kept on the balance, despite it being caused by PPI it should never be there.

 

The bank say we have returned this, but if you pay £1100 to sort your account

 

The bank gets it straight back for something that should never have been there.

 

So they are not refunding the interest at all. You pay it again either straight away or over time at a higher rate.

 

Now if A paid £500 back that should reflect as £1100 on the credit card. it does not as the £600 bogus interest remains payable at a credit card rate.

 

Genius but now rumbled. FCA need to sort this out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope

 

You get back the compounded int that the PPI caused too

 

It's puts you back to if the card had no PPI

 

It can't go to your pocket because most of the bal is only notional it did not exist..it was the PPI..

That's gone

Its called off setting.

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

Erm no PPI interest is at 8% . However As described the balance of your card in unaffected by the refund. You do not have PPI interest removed at all. It does not put you back as you still have a higher balance then if no PPI in my case £1100 higher, read again, it is your choice on refund how you pay £1500 off, use the £1100 refund but in real terms your original £500 would of done that but now they want £1100 to pay it again. It is your debt and no 8% rate on a credit card it is a clever sting operation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ERM yes

On a credit card you only get stat int for the months the card was in credit after PPI has been removed

 

You really need to go read the fos PPI information

 

Do you really think after all these gears of PPI refu D's no one else would have spotted this???

 

Played enough with you

 

Got better things to do

If you want CAG to che k your refund is correct

 

You'll need to post up your spreadsheet you did

All your statements

And the fos customer questionnaire you filled out when making the claim

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

Thanks for the feedback, spreadsheets checked sorry nobody else noticed but it is clear that the card balance does not change following a refund.

 

 

it remains as before and as posted you can choose to give back your refund to be where you should be or pay it at a high interest rate over time.

 

 

your £500 original payment not going to your card has racked up £600 extra of interest on your card account.

 

 

That remains on your balance after any refund in any shape or form.

 

 

So your £600 refund is paid back one way or another, its in your name on your balance £600 extra debt due to PPI.

 

 

they do not remove it !.

 

 

Yes you have your £500 back too, however only £1100 will put you back to where you were before PPI kicked in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Can i ask did you get a refusal at first?

 

 

Ive tried to claim ours back as we didnt even know was on there,

but they have refused saying they sent us a letter on 2013 which we didnt receive (or id have cancelled it then) and they have now said its after 3 years are them writing to us???

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?476649-PPI-Complaint-with-Barclaycard&p=5016523#post5016523

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...