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

Cap 1 - Statutory Interest compensation for old PPI?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2410 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

I have received response from Capital One upholding a PPI complaint.

However, although the figures are fairly small (they suggest PPI Premiums paid were £157),

the amount of compensation offered does not (in my opinion) take into account the age of the 'issue' (account closed 18 years ago!).

 

Am I correct in suggesting that statutory interest compensation should be applied at a rate of 8% per annum (simple - not compound)?

 

Tried the calculators in CAG library but links don't seem to work!

 

Had similar concern with a couple of Barclaycard complaints

- upheld and compensation offered but with paltry interest calculations.

 

Did complain to BC but they stated that was their standard approach - and tough!

 

Does anyone have any knowledge as to what final settlement figures should be based upon?

 

Any help much appreciated!

 

Apologies - this posted in wrong Forum by mistake (should have been PPI) but cant move?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

so you don't have ms office loaded then?

 

edit:ah no I know your problem

you need to update IE11

 

do save as and rename to statint.xls

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

Many thanks.... Certainly not straightforward!!

 

Had previously read their guidelines but struggled to interpret that to an account closed 18 years ago without all paperwork and where the company just provides headline figures for their calculation without explanation - very confusing!

 

Thanks dx100 - will try....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks.... Certainly not straightforward!! Had previously read their guidelines but struggled to interpret that to an account closed 18 years ago without all paperwork and where the company just provides headline figures for their calculation without explanation - very confusing!

get their breakdown.

if its too old for complete records the old 'reconstruction' may have been used.

the fos link gives some info re that.

scroll to their eg that most suits yours.

 

see also post #83 here for some useful info

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?431815-LLoyds-Cardholder-Protection-Plan&p=5040695#post5040695

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ford

- have read the thread you suggest although still confused as to the stat interest compensation - some suggest simple 8% per year (on total of PPI charges and associated interest) from account closure to date of redress

- whereas others refer to the 8% being calculated "if the sum of this PPI refund would have put you into a positive balance"

- which I would have no idea of!

 

 

This doesn't seem to provide redress for the 18 years they have held my monies (given that they accept the PPI was mis-sold)?

 

Their calculations (!) :-

PPI Premiums paid: £157

Associated Interest: £65

8% Interest: £7.12

Less tax on the 8%: -£1.42

 

 

Total amount being £228 - for an 18 year old debt - seems poor to me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

according to fos re a closed account;

 

 

it seems you need to consider 'For the periods where your account would have been in credit had you not had the PPI policy, we will pay you 8% per year simple interest on the amount you would have been in credit for the period you would have been in credit'

 

plus 8 % since on

'the difference between what your credit card balance was just before you closed your account and what it would have been without the PPI policy just before you closed your account..'

 

whilst factoring in that it is probably a reconstruction due to its age.

as said, get their calculation breakdown first. take it from there.

 

in other words;

8 % on

periods when (deemed) in credit, due to ppi missell.

plus on any 'difference' in closing balance, due to ppi missell.

 

the 'associated' interest covers the card interest, due to ppi missell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the only way you can truly get a good idea

is to have all the statements and use the fosrunning sheet

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

indeed. it could help, for a tenner.

get the full breakdown. (no fee required for that)

get the full statements, if available.

then cross reference and calculate.

then can get the true picture of their calcs, if required :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

they're not right no though

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

- but for the difference of £100 or so - highly questionable whether worthwhile?? Guess the banks realise that too!

determined

what do you want to do? challenge or not.

if so, give them a ring tomorrow and ask for a full breakdown of their calculation as entitled to. you should get that within a couple of weeks.

in the meantime draft a sar letter. if the breakdown doesn't then look right...pursue

otherwise, accept it and have a beer on it.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will call Cap1 as suggested and see how they arrived at figures - and if not satisfactory, for the sake of a tenner, will go for a SAR - as you never know what else that may throw up! If nothing, guess best route forward is to just accept as it is and concentrate on (hopefully) more rewarding CC conflicts!

 

 

Just one final point on the Cap1 offer - aside from figures for PPI mis-sell - they state in letter, regards 'Plevin' issue that it is not relevant where the PPI complaint has been upheld? Is this true???

Have tried to attach excerpt from letter ........

 

Thanks Ford & dx100

Cap1 letter - Plevin003.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

it looks like they are basically saying that the plevin circs don't apply to your case.

some ppi claims were rejected but were later found to be wrongly rejected, ie plevin circs, and were/are then revisited on fos orders following the plevin case.

if a claim has been previously rejected, then it may be worth looking into whether it should be revisited.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well

- Cap1 cant supply statements as too old

- figures quoted were based on their estimation and they claim in accordance with FCA guidelines.

 

Escalated to FOS

- not complaining about PPI premiums (as cant prove otherwise) nor associated interest on premiums

- but on the 8% as this does not take account of the age of the debt.

 

 

FOS have just called me saying they cant do anything - calc is right.

Therefore, If the claim had been for an account that ended a month ago

- the amount calculated would probably be the same for an account closed 20 years ago!

 

This seems rubbish to me!

If the idea is to put you back in a position as if you had not purchased PPI

- then it surely has to reflect the age of the supposed debt?

 

They have had £230 of my money for 17 years

- and to compensate they have paid £7 plus the original £230??

 

 

They may well have followed the rules - but the rules are a nonsense!

If I'd have had the banks money for 17 years I would have been paying min 17% per annum compound interest (and the rest!)

 

Clearly it must be me - insane - and missing the point!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...