Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • Doubt the uneconomic write off would be registered, unless you agreed to accept write off settlement of the claim. It is just cosmetic damage. All that has happened, is that the car has been looked at and they realised the repair costs are going to exceed the value of the car. If the car is perfectly driveable with no upcoming normal work required to pass next MOT, your current Insurers will continue Insurance and you can accept an amount from third party Insurers to go towards you repairing the scratched bodywork.    
    • Peter McCormack says the huge investment by the twins will help Real Bedford build a new ground.View the full article
    • I emailed both. Tarry's came back "Please note that I have now left the business. Please contact Matthew Barnes ([email protected])  going forward" so will send to him.
  • 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

Blemain ppi


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2113 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

A few weeks ago we received a letter from Blemain asking for copies of our home insurance policy so they could make sure their interest was noted on it. I contacted the insurance company, who immediately added a clause, not naming Blemain personally, just saying that "your bank/building society's rights would not be affected by anything done to increase risk of loss or damage in the home provided they were unaware of such action", which I forwarded by post.

This was unacceptable to Blemain and I again contacted the insurance company by letter asking them to add Blemain's name to the schedule and contact them directly by email to say it had been done. 2 days ago we received the following,

 

INSLETTER18JULY2011.jpg

 

Does anyone have any advice please?

Edited by phatram
Typo's
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

To clarify. Did you send them the policy? Or just that individual clause??

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

what are they going on about?

 

there was a simular thead some time back

turned out they had been charging their own insurance when there was insurance already on the buildings etc

 

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

Hmm thats a new one on me, charge you for not providing required documentation...

 

a) Does their t&c state they will do this?

b) Does it define "required documentation", its far too open ended for my liking.

c) Has your insurer complied with their request?

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think it is bit strange that this is the first time they have ever asked about the insurance? I wonder why that is hey?

 

The agreements terms & conditions read:

 

THE POLICY SHOULD NOTE THE LENDER'S INTEREST AND A COPY OF THE POLICY SHOULD BE SENT TO THE LENDER

 

NOT MUST NOTE AND MUST BE SENT???

 

Wonder why all of a sudden Blemain are sending out these letters, mmmmmmmmmmmm

Edited by frettful38
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pers I would refuse their schedule of charges, stating

that you and the insurers have full complied with

the clause in the agreement, and that you require

them to remove the charges from you account.

 

Head your letter Formal Complaint and address to the MD

or CEO.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think it is bit strange that this is the first time they have ever asked about the insurance? I wonder why that is hey?

 

The agreements terms & conditions read:

 

THE POLICY SHOULD NOTE THE LENDER'S INTEREST AND A COPY OF THE POLICY SHOULD BE SENT TO THE LENDER

 

NOT MUST NOTE AND MUST BE SENT???

 

Wonder why all of a sudden Blemain are sending out these letters, mmmmmmmmmmmm

 

Give us a clue,
:???:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be due to it only being on Cheshire BS CCA as an introducer

and not specifically licenced themselves?

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for being a bit thick here but I dont get what you are saying. We've had this loan for a few years and think only had one late payment. I'm going to paste some info up after work for people to look at. I'm quite prepared to take these on, they don't frighten me !

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have had a thread on Blemain recently where they

stated that the CCA 1974 and amendments cannot apply to

them as they are not OFT licensed.

They seem to be working on the cover of the building

societies license.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were you self employed at the time?

Were you told that PPI was essential to get the loan?

I believe the telephone charges are unreasonably high.

 

Brig.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were you self employed at the time?

Were you told that PPI was essential to get the loan?

I believe the telephone charges are unreasonably high.

 

Brig.

 

Yes, yes and so do we. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case PPI is defo miss sold, = complaint 1. and reclaim.

Formal complaint in same letter regarding unreasonable charges,

and copy all to OFT, loads of breaches there.

Trading Standars via consumer direct is another route.

Press Blemain hard on all points and get their

complaints procedure, follow that, I have no doubt

that they will come up with a Final Response full of bull feathers

so you can take it to FOS.

 

Brig.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi S, 35 quid for a phone call I only charge £12 time for a review:madgrin:

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are allowed to charge these so lawful yes,fair and reasonable probably not.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Charging interest on charges?

There was a recent thread on them where

they claimed that they were ''untouchable'' as

they are not regulated or licensed by the OFT.

and that CCA doesn't apply as the are only

an ''introducer''.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

What on earth is an introducer? If its what I think it is then why were they used by CLICK FOR A LOAN (broker) for our loan?

Sent the following to FOS,

I, along with many others am having problems with Blemain Finance and was wondering if you could advise as to whom complaints should be made about Blemains practices.

Many of their customers are being ripped off with unfair and unreasonable charges and interest on those charges. Blemains new con is to not accept someones house insurance and to “set up” a policy to show Blemain’s interest on a second charge. I suggest most people cannot afford to pay this and so then incur more charges and interest which means they can never pay off the loan.

My wife and I took a loan out through CLICK FOR A LOAN(Broker) over five years ago and think we’ve only had one late payment and yet we owe more than we borrowed !

Blemain ignore complaints made to them and then charge £35 to telephone us for any trivial matter they can invent.

The broker charged £1000 along with £250 arrangement fee to Blemain, both of which were added to the amount borrowed, is this legal?

I look forward to your response.

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...