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

Gregory Pennington DMP charged me PPI **WON FROM STERLING GROUP**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1753 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

deadline who set that?

 

if that's what the ICO said then id have advised you to immediately write to GP

demanding to know who their underwriters were else you'll start a serious complaint with the ICO in 14 days without further notice

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

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 3 months later...

I wrote the letter to GP but once again no reply.

 

Since I found that doc' showing that Direct Group were the ISP I think that I've overlooked the obvious. Although the copies that GP sent in reply to my SAR show that PPI was charged each month it showed no Underwriter's name,

 

as I was looking through the originals today I see it clearly states PPI Stirling Insurance. I see that Stirling are now part of Covea.

 

I just phoned Covea and they gave me a number for Stirling, Stirling took all my details and confirmed that it was them who underwrote the PPI with Pennington,

 

they also informed me that with regards this matter I should write to Covea at their Kent Address.

 

I have a spreadsheet and template letter all ready to fire off but if Stirling tell me to "go forth " what option would I have.

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I sent a claim letter to Stirling Insurance which they received on 12th of this month, today I received a reply which I've scanned and attached. As you can see they have forwarded my complaint to " Think Money Group " which is Pennington. As GP have already sent me a Final Response denying liability I would assume that they'll simply repeat what they've previously said.

img20190217_02431673.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

reply with a copy of the GP letter

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

well they were certainly regulated yes.

but was it GISC at that time?

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

I downloaded a piece from the FOS site ( online PPI resource ) , It states that the FCA/FSA were the regulators from 2005, The GISC from 2001 and prior to that the ABI. As the first monthly charge of PPI on my account was October 2001 do you think it's safe to assume that the GISC rules were in place at that time. I could make a call to the FCA to be completely sure when there rules applied.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no you've got it right

GISC was in place and the underwriters would have been regulated by them.

trying pass the parcel me thinks.

 

think there already a few sterling wins here for that period already.

London mortgage/Capstone/Acenden if I remember right

 

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

Yesterday I spent a lot of time talking to the FOS and FCA regarding when the GISC first began.

The FOS said that they came into being in Nov' 2001 which would be a month after the first charge

 

when I did some more scratching around I found an article from the National Archives dated 22nd Nov 2002 which states that the GISC was launched in 2000.

 

I have to say that it seems to depend on who you happen to speak to in the FOS, not all there seem to be able to help.

 

But you're spot on regarding pass the parcel.

 

I'll send off my letter to Stirling tomorrow,

I'll address it to the same address as before and not to Covea and I'll ask them why they chose to pass the matter off to GP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

This is to put a closure on this thread, and I hope that it helps anyone unfortunate enough to have had any dealings with Gregory Pennington.

 

As you can see from my postings I have been trying to reclaim PPI from these guys, but to no avail.

 

My problem was in identifying the actual underwriters,

I tried chasing Direct Group and a couple of others connected with this particular insurance group without any success.

The answer was right in front of me.

 

Luckily I had managed to find the original monthly statements from GP, or at least most of them.

And there was the name of Sterling Insurance.

Once again I sent off my spreadsheet plus my claim

 

in reply received a letter from COVEA INSURANCE.

It was the standard " we're sorry you're not happy etc " reply and promising an investigation.

That was on 14 Feb',

 

on the 17 April they sent me a cheque which was for about 60% of my claim and a letter explaining their decision part of which states...…...……….

 

" Whilst COVEA INSURANCE plc ( formerly STERLING INSURANCE GROUP LIMITED ) was the underwriter of your insurance policy, we had no involvement in the selling of it. The finance was arranged by Gregory Pennington who also arranged the sale of the policy.

 

We have been attempting to address your complaint with Think Money and obtain the point of sale documents to investigate your issues further, however, we have struggled to get the information, and consequently we have decided to accept your complaint, and on an ex-gratia basis refund the premiums with interest. "

 

So that's it my friends, Another door closed.

I hope that this proves helpful...……….If you've had dealings with GP the chances are that it was STIRLING INSURANCE who underwrote the policy.

Here is the address that I wrote to initially.

 

Stirling Insurance Group

50 Kings Hill Avenue

Kings Hill

West Malling

Kent

ME19 4JX.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well done

marked as won.

 

please consider a donation to keep us here

 

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 changed the title to Gregory Pennington DMP charged me PPI **WON FROM STERLING GROUP**
  • 3 weeks later...

In 2001 I went to Gregory Pennington for help with my creditors.

 

As you know they require details of your creditors ( how much each are owed ). 

They also require details of your monthly income/expenditure in order to make offers to your creditors.

 

My only income was from my monthly pay cheque.

They asked me if there was any other money coming in each month, I told them there was my son's DLA payment, this was spent entirely on him, also £66 child benefit.

 

They said that my monthly pay alone would not be enough to show my creditors that I could satisfy monthly payments and to that end they included the DLA payment ( £180 ) in my income bracket.

 

In December 2003 they carried out a further financial review, at this time the DLA payment had increased to £260 ( this money also was spent entirely on him ) which they also included in the income bracket. In the expenditure bracket they showed £150 Disability Requirements.

 

Ultimately the inclusion of the DLA payments only served in getting the creditors to agree to a payment plan.

 

That plan was based on misleading figures and I began to struggle to make the monthly payments, which included £25 management fee plus PPI ( £12.75 - £15 ).

 

In the end after incurring a number of penalties for not meeting the monthly deadlines, the matter became so severe that the council threatened to take the house away.

 

Only after I made an appointment with the council to discuss my plight did I get the first honest advice. I agreed to make monthly payments to the collection agency used by the council and I was told about the Consumer Credit Counselling Service.

 

After examining my income/expenditure details they contacted my creditors and as a result I had repayments which I could afford.

 

In February of this year I wrote to GP  repeating the above details and said that I did not believe that I had been treated fairly, and that the level of professionalism that I had received fell well below what could reasonably be expected, as a result I felt that I should be compensated.

 

GP wrote back to say that I was time barred. I made a complaint to the FOS who said as GP was not under their jurisdiction at the time they could do nothing.

 

I've scanned a copy of the letter from GP and also the letter from the FOS

 

..Do you think that I have a case to argue.

 

img20190610_14005939.pdf img20190610_14021761.pdf img20190610_14112872.pdf img20190610_14125312.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...