Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Aesmith - Thank you for your recent interest in my issues.  Input on people's topics can be most useful from specialised experts or those that have similar experiences.  Some people really struggle with knowing what to do (I certainly do) - so it is most useful and helpful and reassuring when solid sensible advice is offered.  I have found there to be some very kind, helpful, supportive and legally knowledgeable people here on cag over the years - who give sound legal advice for people to roll up their sleeves and follow up on.   Of course, sometimes it can be quite challenging sifting the wheat from the chaff.  I don't have lawyer or barrister.  I sometimes attend pro-bono legal clinics for help.  And sometimes have access to barristers via a pro-bono service called Advocate.  Both ad-hoc. Pro-bono means 'free'
    • The Judge was wrong. The keeper is only INVITED to say who was driving, there is no obligation for them to say.
    • Member of the Question Time audience asks Richard Tice about Donald Trump.    
    • I hope Lord Frost is OK. Islamists and the woke Left are uniting to topple the West ARCHIVE.PH archived 18 Apr 2024 19:12:37 UTC  
    • Ok you are in the clear. The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 for two reasons. The first is that in Section 9 [2][e]  says the PCN must "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges ". It does not say that even though it continues correctly with blurb about the driver. The other fault is that there is no parking period mentioned. Their ANPR cameras do show your arrival and departure times but as that at the very least includes driving from the entrance to the parking space then later leaving the parking space and driving to the exit. It also doesn't allow for finding a parking spot: manoeuvering into it avoiding parking on the lines: possibly having to stop to allow pedestrians/other cars to pass in front of you; returning the trolley after finishing shopping; loading children disabled people in and out of the car, etc etc.  All of that could easily add five, ten or even 15 minutes to your time which the ANPR cameras cannot take into account. So even if it was only two hours free time you could  still have been within the  time since there is a MINIMUM of 15 minutes Grace period when you leave the car park. However as they cannot even manage to get their PCN to comply with the Act you as keeper cannot be pursued. Only the driver is now liable and they do not know who was driving as you have not appealed and perhaps unwittingly given away who was driving. So you do not owe them a penny. No need to appeal. Let them waste their money pursuing you . 
  • 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

Associates /CitiFinancial Loan PPI claim


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1962 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

After lots of reading and research, I'm going to attempt to claim the PPI for a loan that I took out with The Associates, before they became a part of CitiFinancial Europe.A

 

I was a student at the time with, two young children aged under 3 at the time. It was the first time I'd borrowed money and I took the loan out to help pay for their nursery fees after a mess-up with my Student finance. So glad those days are behind me now!

 

They have recently paid out PPI for a credit card that I had with them. They stated that they couldn't find any details of the loan but would look at it again, if I sent them documentation relating to my account.

 

I did - I found my credit agreement, a statement of account that showed all the payments that I had made on the account (bar the final one).

I also found various letters that showed the Associates account number and the account number when Citi took over.

 

I even have a letter informing me of the "exciting change" of their name change from Associates Capital Corporation to CitiFinancial Europe PLC, on 11 April 2003

 

Despite all this irrefutable evidence, they will not investigate my complaint any further as they cannot locate my account on their system. As the loan was taken out in 2000, it is out of scope for the FOS. Therefore my intention is to issue a claim through the small claims court.

 

I'm going to need some help with calculations. This is because I have read about 4 different ways of calculating the redress and it's doing my head in!

 

My figures are as follows

 

Loan amount = £1050

Insurance = £400.17

Arrangement fee = 75.00

Interest rate was 3.020%

APR 48.8%

 

Any suggestions and/or help with calculations will be appreciated. I've had a stab at it and will post up what I've done shortly.

 

Thanks in advance CAG family!

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing

My threads

deedee1310 v Abbey, deedee1310 v Capital One, deedee1310 v Halifax Plc, CapQuest CCJ, deedee1310 v Littlewoods & deedee1310 v Smile

If I have been of help in even the smallest way, please click the star and "add to my reputation" :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Id still sar anyway

 

There is only oneway to calc a loan

The statint sheet you've used lots of times

And the ppipcm% calc

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 dx! Long time no speak and thanks for dropping by.

 

What's the ppi cm % calc?

 

Also do you think it's worth an SAR as the account is 18 years old now and CitiFinancial are no longer, it's Canada Operations who deal with them now. I'll do it for the hell of it.

 

On a side note, do you think it's worth claiming the penalty charges that they charged for late payments too?

 

Thanks for your time.

My threads

deedee1310 v Abbey, deedee1310 v Capital One, deedee1310 v Halifax Plc, CapQuest CCJ, deedee1310 v Littlewoods & deedee1310 v Smile

If I have been of help in even the smallest way, please click the star and "add to my reputation" :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its free it will nail them down

Ppipcm%

 

Cost of ppi/total cost of loan*100=ppiPcm%

 

Then that % of your monthly went to ppi each month

 

Charges outside of 6yrs under restitution claim to court

See the shelley or martin2006 threads

 

Dx

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

Ah yes, I understand now. That's one of the workings that I've done, so I'm on the right track. Thank you for confirming that.

 

It's the restitution argument that I'm trying to get my head around. I'll have a read of Shelley and Martin2006's threads. I read MrZ's thread and thought I'd understood but I'm not so sure now. Too much info in such a short space of time!

 

Thanks again DX

My threads

deedee1310 v Abbey, deedee1310 v Capital One, deedee1310 v Halifax Plc, CapQuest CCJ, deedee1310 v Littlewoods & deedee1310 v Smile

If I have been of help in even the smallest way, please click the star and "add to my reputation" :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...