Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I can only speak from personal experience. But a similar thing happened to me. Seriously dented door.  I made the other insurance pay. They regarded it as a write off. Took the money, replaced the door. Never heard anything more about it.    Except clearly someone sold my details to claims company, because I got loads of calls in bad English for a few month's 
    • The incident was 03rd March 2024 - and that was the only letter that I have received from MET 15th April 2024 The charge I paid was at the Stansted Airport exit gate (No real relevance now - I thought this charge was for that!!).   Here is the content of email to them (Yes I know I said I was the driver !!!!) as said above -  I thought this charge was for that!! "Stansted Airport" Dear “To whom it may concern” My name is ??  PCN:  ?? Veh Reg: Date of Incident: 03rd March 2024 I have just received a parking charge final reminder letter, dated 10th April 2024 - for an overstay.  This is the first to my knowledge of any overstay. I am aware that I am out of the 28 days, I don’t mean to be rude, this feels like it is a scam My movements on this day in question are, I pulled into what looked like a service station on my way to pick my daughter and family up from Stansted airport. The reason for me pulling into this area was to use a toilet, so I found Starbucks, and when into there, after the above, I then purchased a coffee. After which I then continued with my journey to pick my daughter up. (however after I sent this email I remember that Starbucks was closed so I then I walked over to Macdonalds) There was no signs about parking or any tickets machines to explains about the parking rules. Once at Stansted, I entered and then paid on exit.  So Im not show where I overstayed my welcome.. With gratitude    
    • Just to enlarge on Dave's great rundown of your case under Penalty. In the oft quoted case often seen on PCNs,  viz PE v Beavis while to Judges said there was a case for claiming that £100 was a penalty, this was overruled in this case because PE had a legitimate interest in keeping the car park free for other motorists which outweighed the penalty. Here there is no legitimate interest since the premises were closed. Therefore the charge is a penalty and the case should be thrown out for that reason alone.   The Appeals dept need informing about what and what isn't a valid PCN. Dummies. You should also mention that you were unable to pay by Iphone as there was no internet connection and there was a long  queue to pay on a very busy day . There was no facility for us to pay from the time of our arrival only the time from when we paid at the machine so we felt that was a bit of a scam since we were not parked until we paid. On top of that we had two children to load and unload in the car which should be taken into account since Consideration periods and Grace periods are minimum time. If you weren't the driver and PoFA isn't compliant you are off scot free since only the driver is liable and they are saying it was you. 
    • Thank you dx. I consider myself well and truly told :) x Thank you dx. I consider myself well and truly told :) x
  • 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

Mortgage PPI - Does this constitute misselling?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2142 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,

 

just wondered if anyone could offer views please on whether there is a valid PPI claim here, before I spend ages going through old paperwork to get exact details together.

 

I took out a mortgage in mid 2008 as a naive first time buyer. At the mortgage arrangement meeting, they sprung a conversation about PPI on me with a very hard sell and wanted an answer there and then. This was after they'd given me an offer/acceptance in principle; I cannot remember if it was before or after acceptance of my formal application.

 

Looking back now, I'm not convinced the PPI was sold in a fair way because:

- Strong scare tactics were used - the adviser said bluntly that if I were sick or redundant, without this I'd lose my house. In reality, I planned to overpay where possible (and often did) so could have taken a payment holiday for a period.

- They did not make me aware that I could purchase PPI elsewhere to cover this mortgage, potentially for a lower price.

- The adviser used a tale about her mum not having it and blah blah blah e.t.c..... i.e. emotional manipulation.

- the cover paid out for a max 12 months - but I had always planned to hold back at least £20k in savings (and did!), so would have been able to comfortably cover the mortgage payments for that period anyway... and if I were sick/unemployed longer than that, I'd get to a point of struggling anyway so PPI would just be delaying inevitable.

 

I do acknowledge

- ultimately I was aware it was optional, but as noted previously the "you will lose your house" scare tactics were in my head

- it was clearly listed on annual statements so no question of me not knowing about it

- I cannot remember if it was an advised or unadvised.

 

Other info:

- I cancelled PPI in 2016

- I never made a claim

- It was all arranged at the one face to face mortgage application meeting.... so records demonstrating the pressure of the sale are likely to be non existent.

 

Thoughts ? Or is it ultimately down to me for not having enough brain capacity to look at it properly when in the middle of buying a house?

 

Thanks

Edited by DorsetKen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who?

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

Yorkshire are quite good

Have got all the paperwork etc?

If not SAR them

 

Don't just blindly sent a reclaim letter

Use the FOS cust questionnaire

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

  • 9 months later...

So... a belated update, in case it helps anyone else.

 

I decided not to use the fos questionnaire, because it seemed heavily biased to the "usual" three mis-selling reasons (self employed, not told about ppi, or told it was compulsory when it wasn't), and none of those applied to me per original post. It didn't seem to give me sufficient space to say what I wanted to say.

 

Instead I wrote a letter myself, very specifically focusing on two key points rather than trying to claim everything under the sun. In my case, these were

1/ the way it was sold

and

2/ alternatives not properly explored

 

Result: after 6 weeks, a cheque for full refund of premiums plus 8% interest.

 

Thanks to dx100uk for replying to the original post.

Edited by DorsetKen
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...