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
      • 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

Egg Card PPI - site had Pre ticked PPI box


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2285 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

Hi,

 

I unsuccessfully claimed against Barclaycard for a mis-sell of egg card PPI back in 2015 (I was successful against Canada Square for my Egg loan)

 

My Reasons were:

 

the box was pre-ticked and having a relationship with Egg I had spoken to someone over the phone first who had advised that I must go online to apply, and as with the loan my chances were improved if I took out PPI.

In addition I had a generous sick pay scheme and redundancy scheme at work.

 

I then sent off a SAR to barclaycard requesting all of my statement information as well as the original application.

They returned a ream of lovely dot matrix print outs (that they insisted I go into a branch to collect) and a reconstruction of my application..

.none of which was of any use to me in my hunt for further information, so I left the claim at that point.

 

I recently became aware of a "failed SAR" and what it meant,

so I sent another request to Barclays for the information,

pointing out that they had failed to provide the relevant information requested.

 

I have now had another ream of much easier to decipher a4 paper (delivered to my flat this time),

this includes all of my statements as well as some information on my claim.

 

This following stood out for me:

 

Again they haven't provided my application,

this time not even a reconstruction,

just a page of settings & values,

again it says "Y" for PPI and I am sure that this was pre-ticked

 

The PPI rate climbed from 54p to 79p in the £ (with a mid range in the middle) within a very short space of time with no notification.

I also have "finance charges" which I have asked for further explanations on,

but I suspect were put in place when PPI took me over my limit as this was applied before payments were calculated

 

Then the final and most worrying item,

there is data about when my claim was filed and "settled",

the settled date is correct,

the claimed date is years out,

which seems to indicate a lackadaisical approach to reviewing these claims,

and a total lack of due care and diligence on their part,

 

I can't believe that my claim was actually looked into bar data entry & sending out standard letters based on this information.

 

In addition I now have the details of my exact sick pay offering as well as the letter sent when AXA were replaced as the underwriter of the insurance,

this was the first inkling I had of this being optional and I turned off PPI soon afterwards.

 

Given all this new info, and the fact that BC failed to hand some of it over at the first time of asking,

am I right in thinking I could ask them to review my claim again even though the 6 months has long passed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6mts only applied to the FOS

it is well know that the EGG site was pre ticked

lots of successful claims here on that reason alone

as well as on the FOS site examples

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...