Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks very much Bank. I have topped and tailed my LOC and printed off a copy which I shall post tomorrow by First Class post at my local post office and also obtain a proof of postage. I'll also email them a copy. I've opened a MoneyClaim account, and shall now begin work on my draft Particulars of Claim which I shall post here for your thoughts. And I shan't be using the Moderation service.
    • Yes, it struck me this morning that I'd got it wrong    - no involvement of UKPPO in any previous Tesco thread    - there would have been an entrance sign to a Tesco car park    - CCTV isn't something associated with Tesco car parks. Presumably whoever runs the car park has put CCTV at the electric, and probably BB, areas, done absolutely nothing to stop abuse, and then rubs their hands in glee every time the CCTV catches a motorist out. You can pay £60 and this will go away. Or you can defy UKPPO and rely on their non-respect of POFA, consideration period, etc., should they be daft enough to do court later down the line.  We would support you all the way.
    • thats not the way to do it sorry. sorry so what is your problem? that vanquis paid the £560 or that they are now chasing it? how old is this debt? dx  
    • If you visited Qatar you could be detained at the border, if the debt has been notified.  If you are only in transit and do not seek to cross border into Qatar you might be ok, but you may want to seek formal advice about this.
    • Howdy, I had a short lived credit card with Vanquis that I did not need. I paid it off in full and called them and closed it with the person at the other end. 2 months later they started sending me messages about late payments, I called them and to find out that the card had not been closed in error and 6 weeks after it should have been closed they paid a google debit of £560. I hit the roof and made a formal complaint that took them well over a month to respond to. They agreed they were at fault, refunded all late payments fees and offered me £100 in compensation. However they said the debit amount stood as 'I had benefit from it' and I should get a refund from google. I hit the roof again but they have stuck to their guns. The debit from google is a genuine one but I wanted to dispute it with google so closed the card so they would have to engage with me. But surely that's neither here nor there surely? What is the next step? Ombudsman takes forever doesn't it?  thanks in advance
  • 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

Paragon unable to uphold PPI - Help please!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2258 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,

 

Wonder if someone can point me in the right direction.

 

Back in December 2004 (Paragon have quoted Feb incorrect below copy of their letter) my wife and I took out a £20k loan, and this loan had the mandatory PPI of £7k on the paperwork.

 

With news of the Plevin judgement I approached Paragon and they have said the are unable to uphold my complaint and if unsatisfied to approach the Ombudsman.

 

Is there anything I can do?

 

can I even ask for the commission rate of the PPI?

 

any help much appreciated :-(

 

Many thanks,

Dusty

 

Our investiqation

ln the case of Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance [2014], the Supreme Court indicated that commission in some circumstances could result in an unfair relationship between the lender and the consumer, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Act).

 

However, for the unfair relationship provision of the Act to apply, the Credit Agreement had to have been taken out on or after 6 April 20A7 or, for an agreement taken out before 6 April 2007 and be ongoing as at 6 April 2008.

 

As your loan was taken out on 13 February 2004 and was redeemed on 23 January 2006, your complaint is considered ineligible under the Plevin judgement.

 

Our decision.

 

Based on the above information.

I am unable to uphold your complaint.

 

Whilst I appreciate this may not be the response you had hoped for,

under the terms of our complaints procedure this is our final response.

 

You may have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, free of charge

- but you must do so within six months of the date of this letter.

Paragon PPI letter 250118.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

why did you go plevin and not reclaim the ppi itself?

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

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

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

Thank you, so do you think a straight forward request for PPI refund is the way to go? and do you think I’ve muddied the pitch by going the Plevin route first?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two diff things not related

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

use the FOS Customer questionnaire

not some silly speculative 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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...