i believe i have been tricked into a contract with bes electric. my problem started when my daughter move into a new hair salon in chatham kent, she had a call which we believed to be our existing energy supplier edf and because she was busy with a client asked them to ring me at my home address. although it was clear i thought i was talking to edf with our present meter reading she made no attempt to introduce herself. she quoted different energy prices and naturally i chose the cheapest, when i finally realise who she was i tried to raise several issues to deter her from proceeding but she dismissed my concerns saying there would be no problems. before i knew it i had entered into a 4 year contract. at first i wasn't concerned as they did quote the cheapest rates and i believed i would have a cooling off period, but when the contract arrived there was serveral terms and conditions that i was not made aware of. the prices they quoted were based on our monthly usage, as my daughter has just moved in we had no way of knowing what that would be. there was also penalty fees. i rang them immediately saying we did not want to proceed only to be told the contract was legally binding and it would cost £400 to cancel. i couldn't except that a short telephone conversation could tie us up in this way. the £400 was only for a short period of time it would then raise to 48times what they estimate our monthly usage to be. another problem was they had the wrong meter number, and started invoicing us for energy they were not supplying. i rang edf at least four times to confirm they were still supplying our electric and what was more worrying was bes invoices were almost 400% higher than the ones from edf. i then contacted the ombudsman they believe they had cleared up the problem of the incorrect meter, but we have had no confirmation of this. now bes have the correct meter they have taken over our supply. the ombudsman has just ruled in their favour regarding the contract having listened to the recording, i also have a copy of the recording but the first half is missing so it is being heard completely out of context. I have tried explaining to bes that i was not the owner and didn't have her authority in arranging a new supplier they have just sent a letter asking for solicitors letter, driving license, passport, and tenancy agreement all to be supplied within 14days. i have replied to the ombudsman telling him how disappointed i am with his decision. i have now just received a phone call saying the landlord has been approached and asked for details of the tenancy, he had already been informed of what was going on and is as angry as we are. surely there must be some way of stopping these people without incurring costly lawyers fees and court cases. i know i am not alone i feel like shouting from the roof tops avoid this company like the plague. My daughter has decided to close the business just to get rid of them.

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 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?

Hi, Can someone please help me with cancelling memberships with Bannatynes which I feel I have been mis-sold. The reason I feel this is because when we went in for the intial chat and look around, I specifically asked: 1. Are the childrens clubs full ? (this is a huge thing for me as I didnt want to be paying £12.50 per month for my 5yr old daughter is going to be alone) I was told "yes, they are really popular" 2. Are there any inflatables in the pool for my child? I was told.... "no, but you are more than welcome to bring your own" 3. So, we can attend anytime at the weekends and bring my daughter swimming?... "yes, of course you can" 4. The supervised swim sessions which run twice a week, does this mean I can leave my 5yr old daughter there to be supervised while I work out?....... "yes, thats correct" So, I agree to memberships for myself, my husband, my 16yr old daughter and my 5yr old daughter. Since then it has become apparent that: 1. My 5yr old daughter is nearly alone in the kids classes 95% of the time. 2. No inflatables are allowed in the pool so all my 5yr old can do is hold onto the side for the whole time we are in the pool as its too deep for her to stand up and she cant swim. 3. No children are allowed in the gym before 2pm anyday of the week. My daughters went there one Sat morning and were told they are not allowed in. 4. Supervised swim means the child has to be accompanied with an adult if they cannot swim. This does not mean that there will be someone in the pool with them, it simply means there will be a personal trainer walking aorund the pool at these times. I really feel I have been mis-sold these memberships, so I wrote a letter to Head Office explaining this and had a reply saying that "as a goodwill gesture" they will cancel my two daughters memberships but not mine and my husbands. I replied stating that I only joined due to the childrens facitlites and that I was led to beleive that we could work out every day for an hour while my child was in the "popular" kids clubs which run for one hour per day and also we were of the opinion we could swim all day everyday at weekends if we wanted. They have today replied saying that "members are given the opportunity to ask questions relating to the contract until they feel comfortable to the obligations that they are about to commit themselves. It is ultimately the responsibility of the member to ensure that they understand all terms relating to the membership" So basically, I am determined to reply, but I need to word it correctly and would appreciate any help please. Thank you Jen xx

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

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!

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.

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

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.

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:???::???:

Hi I have pasted a letter that I have written. Basicly I am not sure if this is the norm but my Mortgage company are charging me £50 for each month that i am in arrears. I have currently got an agreement set up with them via a court repo hearing and it turns out that I will apying the arrears for 5 years and the whole time they are charging £50. So I have decided to complain to the FSA for unfair contract terms and if they have a go at Kensington then I can apply to Kensington to stop charging. Well thats the plan anyway. Can somebody look at my letter please and see what you think before I send it Also if anybody else is in the same position feel free to send it aswell. The more the merrier. The Olives Our Street Our Town ESSEX AC12 3CD 1st March 2008 Dear Sir/Madam I currently hold a mortgage with Kensington Mortgage Company. I am writing to complain about one of their terms and conditions. I have enclosed a copy of both the terms and conditions of this mortgage and a copy of the loan agreement. In section 4 Key information it states the default charges. The first charge is a £50 monthly arrears fee. On both the agreement and terms and conditions this is the only place it is mentioned. At the time I felt this fee was for missing a payment. I am now in arrears and have since discovered that in fact this fee is charged for the total length of time you are in arrears I feel this is unfair because this is still charged to the account even if you have come to an arrangement to pay the arrears. For example if I owed my mortgage company £500 and I offered them £50 a month for 10 months to clear the arrears my mortgage company would be continuously adding £50 to the account for those ten months. Therefore the payments I had been making would not have really cleared the arrears and it would take me a further 10 months to get the mortgage to what it should be. By adding this charge to the account they are also receiving interest from their own fees. I also see this as unfair. I asked an advisor from Kensington about this charge and she said it was for the additional work involved in running an account that is in arrears. Even if the account with its payment towards the arrears is being paid on time each month they still place this charge making it very difficult to clear any debt. Myself and many more feel like this is a penalty. Therefore I would very much appreciate it if the FSA could look into this matter. Yours sincerely