Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've had a quick (well, quick for a thread of this length),  read of this thread and to be honest I'm struggling to make heads nor tails of the actual crux of the issue here. You seem awfully convinced that whatever is going on is worth the fight and the odds are in your favour but with how the thread has gone it seems that one trail goes cold so you simply move on to another in an attempt to delay the inevitable. All it does is end up digging holes and confusing others and yourself which means any advice given to you is completely pointless. I note that for the life of this thread there has not been any documentation or correspondence uploaded for people to have a look. Have you got any that you'd be willing to redact and upload for members to assist you? Right now, it seems people are shooting out advice while being in the dark because it's starting to become very difficult for people who weren't here at the start of this (including myself) to follow along. Right now, this whole thread is just hypothetical "He said, she said" and is going nowhere fast. Nothing more than basic advice can be given which, as you've sought out some legal advice, is likely not sufficient to actually come to any sort of conclusion. I, personally, am starting to agree with others that it may be best to consider bankruptcy and put the matter behind you.  
    • Thanks for coming back to us. There are no guarantees - but remember that so far MET have not had the guts to put even a single case before a judge.  Not once. Yours is one of seven court cases. Three ongoing like yours. In two MET bottled it as Witness Statement stage approached. In one the allocating judge decided their Particulars of Claim were rubbish and threw the case in the bin. Just the one victory by MET by default when the motorist stupidly didn't file a defence. So there is every chance that MET will throw in the towel in your case too if you stand firm. Please keep us informed of what is happening. Regarding being abroad, that is no reason for things going wrong, you can request an on-line hearing and we've had several cases where the PPC gave up when the motorist moved abroad. But please keep us in the loop.
    • No, I think you're fine with the exhibits you've prepared. Exhibit 1 - photos Exhibit 2 - para 107 of Beavis Exhibit 3 - CPR request Exhibit 4 - Excel v Wilkinson
  • 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

History and background of CPP.


MARTIN3030
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4430 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

Based in York,CPP also has offices in Tamworth and Chesterfield.Founded in 1980,the company made aquisitions of

Its Homecare Insurance and Mobile phone insurance businesses in 2001.

Further aquisitions were Metris Enhancement Services in 2003 and Leapfrog Group in 2009.

CPP provides protection against loss, theft and fraudulent use of financial cards, identity theft protection, phone protection insurance and travel assistance products,and has associations with banks,credit card issuers,and other Financial service providers.

In February CPP's value was reported at £180m.

 

INVESTIGATION BY THE FSA.

 

In March 2011,The FSA announced an investigation into the business practices of CPP,specifically centering around its sales of one of its products to UK customers. The Financial Services Authority's investigation looked into allegations that CPP overstated the risk of identity theft when selling insurance for that purpose. CPP suspended the sale of the product with immediate effect with the intent of creating a new package, possibly without insurance.

 

CPP later launched an uninsured product called "Identity Safe" which will replace their existing product "Identity Protection"

 

In February 2012,CPP announced that its shares had been suspended on the LSE to allow for negotiations with the FSA to take place.

 

Employees at CPP as well as local MPs wrote to the FSA in support of CPP,and express concerns about implications for jobs.

Here is an extract from employees letter which was signed by 11 people.

"We, as the ECF, now think it is imperative that you visit us to meet the employees, and get a clearer understanding of the decisions you are proposing, and the detrimental effect that these decisions will have on our customers and employees,"

 

(EFC -Employee Forum Communication)

 

The FSA declined to comment on the CPP letter, and reiterated its earlier position concerning its concerns over CPP's business practices.

 

 

 

On the 25th February 2012,an agreement was reached which CPP said it would be contacting customers who may have been miss sold policies but warned that redress was likely to cost the company between £10-15m.

 

CAG highlighted the FSA investigation,and also reported on Barclaycards decision not to renew its contract,which CPP appears to believe was an adverse consequence of the FSA investigation.

 

It is unclear as to why CPP has gripes about the investigation,coming so soon after miss selling has been discovered as to have been widespread,throughout the Financial Services sector.

 

The CAG will be monitoring those who feel they do have legitimate claims for a refund,and also would ask members to report any success or progress when seeking redress.

 

CPP was offered on most of the big credit card issuers.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...