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

Incompetent FoS Investigation


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2231 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

I have been with the same Mortgage Provider since 2008. Due to the high level of SVR on the mortgage product, In 2015, I contacted them, and asked if it was possible to do a core product transfer to one of the other mortgages available within the brand.

 

At the time of asking in early 2015, i was told that i was unable to do an internal core product transfer from one part of the brand to another. I inquired about this around ten times between 2015 and 2017.

 

In early 2017, i inquired one more time, and on this occasion, i was told that i was classed as an existing customer, and therefore could do a core product transfer at anytime. I have since done the internal core product transfer and changed from a high SVR to a 2-year fixed deal. The saving per month is over £200.

 

As a result of the bank not telling me that i was able to do an internal core product transfer, i estimate that i have been paying exceptionally high mortgage repayments, and could have saved over £5k, had i been given the correct information.

 

I complained to the bank saying that they should have signposted me to other mortgage products available within the group, and had they done so several year's ago, i would have been substantially better off. The bank did not uphold my complaint. They stated that there adviser's aren't allowed to signpost me on the phone. The problem with there defence is that i was only able to do the core product transfer, two years later, as a result of staff signposting me to this mortgage (the staff member who has worked for the bank for over 10 years telling me they should have signposted me back in 2015).

 

The bank didn't uphold my complaint, so i complained to the FoS. The FoS carried out an investigation and stated that i couldn't provide any proof that i had phoned 2/3 years ago to ask for the internal mortgage product transfer and they stated that the bank had no record of the call. The FoS investigation was very quick and only took a few weeks, despite submitting to them a large amount of information.

 

Unhappy, at the thoroughness and response of the FoS, i decided to submit an SAR to the business and ask them for all notes and recordings of my calls since 2015. As a result i have discovered the call i made in early 2015, asking to do an internal core product transfer. I have also discovered the phone calls where two separate advisers signposted me to other mortgage products, including them telling me that i should have been signposted to one of there other mortgage products.

 

I have submitted this information to the FoS Adjudicator, and asked for his decision to be appealed with an Ombudsman. The Adjudicator is belligerent during our communications and states that he won't pass it to an Ombudsman, until he examines the further evidence i have provided him. In there last communication, the Adjudicator stated that just because i have found this information, doesn't mean he will change his view and decision.

 

It's been over two weeks since i submitted my additional evidence to the Adjudicator, who advised he was going back to the bank. I haven't heard anything back as of yet. I would suggest the bank are probably embarrassed by the fact that i have carried out my own investigation and found the evidence i believe proves my case.

 

The Adjudicator seems to be fairly on the side of the business and i have questioned the depth and thoroughness of there investigation. I supplied them with all of the phone calls i made to the bank over 2/3 years and they apparently couldn't find any trace or evidence of them, yet when i submit an SAR, i get given them on discs.

 

The resolution i am looking for, is for the bank to put me back in the position i would have been, had they given me the correct and appropriate information, when i tried to transfer my mortgage, back in 2015.

 

Any advice would be much appreciated please?

 

Can i ask the Adjudicator to submit my complaint to an Ombudsman as i don't believe that they have carried out a fair, transparent or thorough investigation and that i have sourced all the evidence to prove my case?

 

What about referring this to the Independent Assessor?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely you need to wait for the Adjudicator's response to the new evidence?.

Firstly they might now agree with you (the advice that "just because i have found this information, doesn't mean he will change his view and decision" doesn't mean that he won't change his view, just that he might not!)

If he doesn't change his view, then ask for it to be escalated to the Ombudsman proper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...