Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Help with welcome finance ppi


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2018 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 Guys

 

Need your help and advice.

 

I had some old loans with PPI sold by welcome, for which I both was able to claim my PPI!

Not just we were told that we had to take those policies as our credit history in the uk was almost non existent, to be able to get the loans!

 

This loans were taken with my ex partner, which now is trying to claim, but they saying that the policy was only to cover the 1st named person, whcih was me, however we both clearly remember that we disclose to sales person my serious liver condition, and we were assured that we were both cover, as stated verbally and as he didn't crossed the i/we wording which he said was to show that we were both covered,

 

Back then this in 2000 our english understanding was not the best and the guy not just spoke 1000 miles an hour as he had a strong accent, he even had the "face to add " a health care product for which he knew at least me I would not be ever able to make a claim!

 

We have the original paperwork which show both our names, the ppi premium-together with healthcare product which we were told was a part of the PPI, and it clearly shows the we not crossed, so I believe that not just serve as proof that the otherwise stated, is in place- I mean we were both covered, as proof that he stated this verbally!

 

We should never been forced to buy those products due to my pre medical conditions, as also this should had never been as a condition to get the loan?!

 

My question, W

as my ex partner is trying to get her refund, because she also paid for the loan and her name was in the agreement,

 

does aviva ( underwriter for 1st ppi) and welcome are correct when saying that only me was cover, as technically in the agreement- the we wording was not crossed and left untouched and back then we disclosed my health conditions and were assured by salesperson that was not a problem and that both of us were covered by the ppi, am I correct in my line of thinking and she is entitled to a valid claim, as CAB advisor told her that she had a strong mis selling case?

 

Thanks

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you get all the ppi back under gour claim?

If so she cant claim again

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...