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

Debenhams [GE Money] 1990s Store card PPI reclaim **WON**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2021 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,

Was contemplating a Mis-selling PPI claim against Debehams for a mid 90s account for my wife. I have the original letter which shows it was sold over the phone a few weeks after the account was opened.

 

I think makes it clear that she can cancel at any point and encourages her to read the terms and conditions, so initial reaction was no mis-sell.

 

However. having read the letter again it closes saying (paraphrase) "we encourage all our customers to take this good value insurance" Clearly the insurance wasn't suitable for everybody, and in my wife case she had alternative insurance.

 

So given this will be painful (Santander then underwriter etc.) wonder what people thought the chances of a successful claim were, giving the misleading statement at the end

 

Thanks

 

Rob

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely you must have a better missale reason than that..?

 

Ge money card..go for the underwriters

 

https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:6449422593&ie=UTF-8&q=Debenhams+ppi&sa=Search+CAG

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

Hi,

Well most of the other claims seem to be where it was a pressure sell in store.

 

I could submit a sar and see if they have transcripts of the call or a form signed in store,,

but was hoping to avoid that if people thought this was good enough as I have it in writing they recommend it to everybody and therefore advised my wife to buy it without checking out her other circumstances.

(I'm guessing the answer isn't going to be positive :-) )

 

Thanks,

Rob

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Did you get the sat and know you have the correct sum returned.. Or just trusted them and who coughed he themselves??

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

Did you get the sat and know you have the correct sum returned.. Or just trusted them and who coughed he themselves??

 

I didn't send them the statements I already had, but they had correctly added up the PPI and added about 3 times the original amount in interest. Feels about right and since it's not a lot of money I'll probably just accept it now. ( It is a Santander letter but says it is being settled on behalf of the insurer.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's good news, the behind the scenes info that they actually went after the insurers themselves is interesting.

did they say who they were,

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

that's good news, the behind the scenes info that they actually went after the insurers themselves is interesting.

did they say who they were,

 

Hi- Looks like it is jointly "Financial Insurance Company Limited and Financial Assurance Company Limited". I have only just read the rest of it properly, and it looks like they have excluded themselves under time barring rules, but settled on behalf of the insurer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes that's good

the underwriters cant escape the time bar as GISC ruled them at the time.

 

this is a good result for those that had GE money store cards that were 'pin-holed' like yoy by pressure selling by a rep that got about +£100 to their pocket each time they sold PPI

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...