I made a claim against Citi for mis-selling before the PPI court ruling was made, they told me unless I took it out I couldn't have loan, as had low credit rating. Within a couple of months they re-wrote the loan on a different rate and again with two separate PPI single policies, with arrangement fees added. They offered me a third loan on a lower interest rate but again saying I had to borrow more money to get this new rate and with 2 single PPI policies sold. I accepted the Ombudsman's decision they had to pay me back. I did receive some monies about £3,300 at the end of 2009. However, they have not provided any breakdown of how they arrived at these figures and on the existing loan they only refunded part of the premium, and was told by the Ombudsman to resrtucture the loan. I haven't paid them for a couple of years and in May was told it had been sold to Arrow, Atlas or Westcott (I am unsure who actually owns it as all 3 write to me). They came up with a figure about £300 more than the last letter from Citi confirming the outstanding balance. I said the amount is disputed as they were to restructure the existing loan without the PPI. 2 1/2 years of letters have proved unsuccessful and they wrote just recently to say they do not hold any information for me, but Atlas do. I asked for copies of the CCAs and statements. I wrote to Atlas to say the amount is disputed and low and behold they have replied "Citifinancial have agreed to a reduction of £995 in respect of the PPI". I really don't know whether this is a figure they have just plucked out of the sky but they never re-structured the loan as instructed by the Ombudsman. Again, I have asked for copies of everything and how they worked out the refunds but they fail to do so as I want to try and calculate the figures myself. I have now referred the matter back to the ombudsman as they haven't done as asked in their ruling in my case. Any help appreciated.

Read more: - http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/14526/online-news/businesses-may-be-forced-to-repay-consumers-for-mis-selling

Hi, On Sunday 7th Oct I decided to spend the day looking for cars. There was a car I really liked at a reputable garage in Bristol, so I drove to the garage to go and have a look at the car. Upon arrival I was informed that the car I had originally come to view was actually in the garage being serviced and prepped for sale.. In the meantime another car caught my eye. I asked about the car and showed my interest.. The salesman took me back into the office to find out more information about the vehicle that had caught my eye on the forecourt. This car had finance fall through and therefore no information was available on the website. However, the salesman offered to show me around the car and look first hand.. I really liked, so much I wanted to test drive it, which I did.Whilst on the test drive I asked the salesman "is the car fitted with cruise control?" his reply was "yes, but it doesn't work at slow speeds. You're not allowed to exceed 50 mph on trade plates". I took this as a verbal confirmation. When I returned to the garage from the test drive I was greeted by their finance manager who offered me a 5 year finance deal on the car, which was too expensive and didn't allow me to have any money from my old car. I wanted to sell my car privately as I was convinced I could get more money from a private sale (he offered me £3400 I was looking for a minimum of £5000) as I have £2,500 I needed to pay off before I was to get a new car. I could put the other of the £2,500 I was expecting from the sale of my car as a deposit on the finance. Anyway, he did some calculations and he was able to meet my monthly repayment budget and offer me back £2,500 on my part exchange which was excellent. I signed the deposit and arranged to pick up my car the next day. I went to pick up my car on the Monday after work and I could barely hold my excitement in. The salesman allowed to have a once over of the car before signing all of the finance documents. Again, I asked about how to activate/set the cruise control and the salesman said "It will be on the lever here, do you want me to go and get the car handbook?" I said "No", not wanting to waste any more time.. Presuming at that point that the car would surely have cruise control. Anyway, I drove the car away with a big smile on my face. I drove to my mum's to show her the car. She lives on the other side of town so it requires a motorway trip. "Brilliant", I thought, as I was driving down the motorway I was struggling to work out how to use the cruise control so I asked my partner in the passenger seat to look in the car handbook. I was horrified when there was an extra lever illustrated in the handbook that wasn't featured on my car. The next day I rang up to chase the cheque I was waiting to collect for the £2,500 cashback the salesman offered me for my part exchange. I also mentioned that I'm really happy with the car but that I had one problem, the cruise control. Because of the nature of my business, this is almost a bare essential on any new car I would purchase. The salesman said, "Oh, I'm not sure what we can do about that, come in tonight to pick your cheque up and we'll talk about it". Cautious that big garages have vast backing of legal teams I rang my local citizens advise Bureau to explain my situation as above who said I have two options... To go to the garage and ask for a remedy to my problem (I.E - ask them to fit cruise control or refund me the value to fit cruise control). Alternatively I can request either money back or an exchange for a vehicle of the same value.. Loaded with this information, I returned to the garage knowing I'm fully within my rights to get either or.. I discussed it with the salesman who agreed that I mistakenly told me the car had cruise control, I explained whether it's a mistake or not, I need a vehicle with cruise control. He agreed and spoke to someone higher up. After conferring for about 10 minutes, the person higher up came over and said they will check and see what they can do and will let me know by telephone the next day. I apologise for blabbing, but I thought it would be best that everyone was familiar with the situation. My question is where do I stand if the following happens: - they offer to cancel my finance agreement (what are my rights to getting my original car back) - they offer to fit cruise control at their cost (is it legally required to be done by a dealer or approved garage) What else can I expect from the garage when they come back to me?

As mentioned in the title i had purchased this car on 16/09/12 with my son. The car is a fiesta 2009 1.6 tdci and all seemed well besides a few scratches to which the salesman knocked £200 off for. All was well until today i took the car to my garage for a full valet which was then i realised that there was a patch of carpet glued over a hole on the passenger side. I then lifted the carpet and to my horror i had then seen holes for which dual controls would have gone. I then also noticed a clean scratch free square shape on the roof where the learner sign would have been. When purchasing the car i had asked the garage who owned the car and they said it was company vehicle hence the higher mileage and on the logbook was the name of a company of which sells and hires cars. I was NOT told it was a driving instructor car at the time. I contacted the garage today and the seller has refused any wrong doing despite him admitting that he knew it was instructors and didnt tell me and refuses to refund my money or even give some compensation:mad2:. Please tell me what are my rights on this and how would i go about them? Thank You

I recently visited local Comet store, enquired about Bose home cinema systems and was shown a Companion 3. At no time did the salesperson say the Companion 3 was not a home cinema system so I bought one, got it home and it wouldn't work with my tv. Went onto the Bose website and discovered that what I had been sold as a 'home cinema' system is actually marketed by Bose as computer speakers. Took it back to the store for a refund on the basis that I had been mis-sold a product that wasn't what I wanted but they refused to give me a refund stating that the product was 'Multi-media', the package had been opened and it worked fine in the store. (a. Multi-media does not translate to home cinema system, b. how could I have determined that it didn't work as expected without opening it, c. what good is it to me if it does work in store, that's not where I would want to use it even if it was a home cinema system?) Have written to Comet twice so far and they have basically refused to accept responsibility for providing an after-sales service of any description. See contributor 'Marwan' had similar problem in April this year. Will try his tactics next and write to MD!

I have sent Barclays Bank the fos questionaire and awaiting their response on mis-sold PPI. I do not have statements regarding the loans but know how much i was paying monthly for the 3 loans from 1998,2000 and 2001 respectively. Do I need to do a SAR on these loans? .Your advise is greatly needed.

I made a PPI claim with the Co-op bank on a loan and received a letter with calculations on PPI that I was owed. This totalled around£6500. I signed the letter and returned it to the Co-op asking the money be credited to my current account. Around 4 weeks later I received another letter from the Co-op stating that they had miss-calculated and I was only entitled to £500. Is there anything I can do about this? Was the original offer binding asI had already signed and agreed to it?

Hi everyone, I wonder if you can help me. I wrote to RBS about mis sold PPI on an old, paid up loan, they sent a letter back asking why I thought it had been mis sold. I wrote back saying that as the loan was secured on my property (they had a legal charge on it) why would I need PPI aswell. They replied saying that it was not a valid reason. Any thoughts on this please.

In March 2012, i joined Harpers Gym, and, whilst agreeing to the terms and conditions of my membership, was informed that i was able to be a member on a rolling monthly contract. As a result, today, i contact the gym and informed them that i wanted to cancel it. However, they informed me that i was tied to a 12 month contract which is clearly in contradiction to what i was initially sold and agreed to. The sales manager who sold me the contract told me, at the time of joining, that even though the paperwork says it is for 12 months, this was not the case and that it was in fact membership which is on going from month to month and could cancel at any-time (with 28 days notice). If i thought that i was signing a 12 month contact i would not have agreed to anything and not signed anything. The sales manager who sold me the membership is now on maternity leave and there is no way of the gym to contact her, this s what they have told me. I have spoken to head office who have said that this is a matter which is to be dealt with locally, at the actual gym, yet they gym are saying it is a matter for head office.. Like a i say, if i thought it was for 12 months i would not have agreed to anything and would have gone to a difference gym. In relation to the above, are you able to assist with advising me on my rights and where i stand with this?. At the moment i am considering cancelling my direct debt but fear this may cause me more problems . Can you advise me accordingly please..? Many thanks

Hi My partner banked with lloyds and upgraded her account to gold to pay the monthly fee for travel insurance, mobile phone insurance, etc. Around 2 years ago we opened a joint account with them and then upgraded the account online to silver as we felt this was sufficient for us both, we tried to cancel the upgrade for my partners single account online as we were now both covered by the joint account so it was no longer required. It would not let her do this and told her to contact her local branch. My partner paid a visit to the local lloyds tsb to cancel the account but they told her it's best to keep it open and sold her a load of speil to keep it as an upgraded gold account. She told them that silver was enough to cover us both and told them she does not need it, again they tried to talk her out of it but she says she was convinced that it had been cancelled 2 years later we reviewed our outgoings on where we could save money and realised she was still paying a monthly fee for her single account even though she is covered by the joint account anyway! She arranged an appointment with the local lloyds and cancelled it, again having to keep rejecting lloyds sales tactics to keep it open - I think the main one that they were using was that she would lose the free overdraft facility, the overdraft they have allowed her is only £50! so for £13 a month just for an overdraft is more than if she did not have the upgraded account and had to pay interest on the £50. She told them no and now it is definitely cancelled So she has been paying two fees to cover the same things with the same company for almost two years after she had tried to cancel. Is this mis selling? Can we get the money back for the single account for the period of the joint account being open?

Can anyone help me sort out a claim for being mis sold a mortgage, is it true that this only applies to residential mortgages or does it also cover buy to lets? Also, is there a timescale in which you must claim? Has anyone ever done it sucessfully? Has anyone used one of these companies who do it on your behalf, like the PPI ones we constantly get hassled by! Thanks all

Hello! I am pursuing a PPI claim and received a letter saying the lender has found my agreement and as it was a postal app with the box ticked and so it was non-advised and therefore I have no grounds for a claim. I may have ticked the box but the fact that even if I did I still don't actually know what the PPI covers me for, whether I would've been eligible to claim on it if, what I was excluded on and whether or not there was a different insurance on the market at the time that may have been better suited to me. If they say they have the postal app with a ticked box requesting insurance, is this the end of the road for my claim? Many thanks

hey all i believe i have been mis sold my mortgage but dont know if i can do any thing about it. i believe this because even though i was fully employed the broker i went through got me £116000 on a self cert basis which at the time was nearly 8 times my income as i was only on around £16000 a year. at the time i didnt really understand what self certify ment and was told by the broker that by going down that route would assist in getting me the mortgage. i also had very bad credit at this time and was really surprised that they even gave me a mortgage at all. has anyone had any similar experiences with mortgages and the mis selling of them.

ASA Adjudication on Arnold Clark Automobiles Ltd Ad Claims on www.arnoldclark.com for a used car stated "2003 (03) Vauxhall Corsa 1.2 SXi 3 Dr. Sale Price £2988. Pre Sale price £3488. Save £500 ...". Issue The complainant challenged whether the savings claim was misleading, because he did not believe the car had been offered at the higher price for a sufficient period of time to avoid customers being misled by the price reduction. CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.13.17 Response Arnold Clark Automobiles Ltd (ACA) pointed out that they had been trading since 1954 and the Real Sale had been used as a marketing initiative for the last 20 years, which returned around 25,000 vehicle sales per year. They said this was the first type of complaint they had received. They explained that the car was on sale at the higher price of £3,488 for 10 days from 13 December 2011 to 23 December 2011, at which point it was reduced to £2,988. ACA admitted that they had not advertised the car at the higher price for 28 days, as recommended in the BIS Pricing Practices Guide. They said the nature of the motor trade industry, where in order to have a viable business model used stock needed to be turned over every six weeks, rendered the 28-day rule unviable and would be damaging to their business. They said they had been advised by their Primary Authority to display a notice on the car in the showroom if it had not been on sale at the higher price for 28 days, although they had mistakenly omitted to do this for the car in question. They provided a copy of the notice. They believed the price of £3,488 was a reasonable price at which to sell that particular model and age of car (2003 Vauxhall Corsa 1.2i 3 door) and they explained that the Manager had looked at how the rest of the company priced similar vehicles at that particular point in time. They provided a copy of a spreadsheet showing two similar vehicles at that time were priced at £3,488 and £3,988. They also provided copies of third-party ads for similar used cars which were being advertised for around £3,500. Assessment Upheld The ASA noted the BIS Pricing Practices Guide (the Guide) was not binding on traders, the Courts or the ASA, but that the Code stated that it should be taken into account. We noted the Guide recommended that a price used as a basis for a comparison should be the most recent available price for 28 days or more. We acknowledged that this need not always be the case and that if a comparison used in an ad differed from this advice, the basis of the comparison should be made clear. We noted that the car had been advertised at the higher price of £3,488 for only 10 days and that the website did not make that clear, for example, it did not contain the dates between which the higher price was applicable. We understood that this information was normally provided in the notice which was displayed on the car in the showroom, as advised by ACA's Primary Authority, although this information was not provided on the website. We also noted the Guide stated that price comparisons must be reasonable in terms of time and that prices used as a reference for price comparisons should be genuine retail prices, which included, amongst other things, that the item was on sale at the higher price for a sufficient period of time to allow consumers to become aware of the availability of the item, view the item, make up their minds whether to purchase them and, if so, complete the purchase. We noted ACA's comment regarding the speed of stock movement in the used motor trade industry, and considered that a consumer looking to purchase a used car would normally have a model, make and age in mind, and would realise that they would have to act quickly in relation to an advertised vehicle since there was only one item available. We therefore concluded that 10 days was a sufficient period of time to constitute a genuine offer of sale for this type of product. Nevertheless, because the website did not make clear that the car had been advertised at the higher price of £3,488 for only 10 days, for example by stating the dates between which the higher price applied, we concluded that the savings claim was misleading. The claim breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.17 (Prices). Action The claim must not appear again in its current form. We told ACA to take care when advertising sale prices to ensure that it is made clear where a car has been advertised at a higher price for less than 28 days. They say this is the first complaint, so where are all the complainents that have been here, it's no good just moaning, you have to go out and DO something.

I have downloaded a subject access request letter.Could someone tell me where to send it,do I send it to the mortgage company. Thank You:???::???: