Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'reclaims'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 5 results

  1. Hi, I was just wondering, is there anyone out there who has successfully managed to claim back OSC or DLC, and was this after BH agreed to it or did you have to go through the FOS? Also, just wanted to understand something correctly, am I right in thinking that: 1) Before 2nd September 2013, OSC/DLC was "optional" (I understand many of you may have been mis-sold this) 2) Between 2nd September 2013 and 27th April 2015 OSC and DLC were made compulsory as part of HP contracts 3) After 27th April 2015 OSC and DLC are optional again, but they bundle in some form of repairs etc in the 5* service. Thanks for the help!
  2. After getting my other half to go through a bunch of documentation, it turns out that she had a GMAC mortgage which was paid up in around 2008, and prior to this she was hammered with all kinds of charges for some time. After some searching around on the net, it seems that GMAC should have sent her a letter regarding the redress scheme in the wake of the FSA 2009 ruling on their unfair practices, but she doesn't recall ever getting any mail from them regarding this issue. I knew about the GMAC thing a long time ago, but myself and partner haven't been together long, and she had no idea until I asked her if she had any dealings with any of the companies that had been fined in the past. I gather that GMAC went pear shaped, and are now under another organisation (Paratus I believe), so is there any sense in starting the ball rolling through these people right now in 2015 ? I already battered Welcome finance on her behalf, which was a pretty quick and simple affair really, but I expect these Paratus people to be a more difficult process. The original redress telephone number has been discontinued ( 0800 030 4662 ), so I guess firstly it may be a matter of just contacting Paratus maybe Any thoughts anyone ?
  3. hi i have been referred to your website to look at claiming ppi back i have loans in maiden name and different address could i please have some advice on where to start
  4. http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=519a4338-60a7-49be-8ff1-28f070eca937#.UH0wHaFr1Ws.twitter PPI reclaims soicitor LOST on every count. Mrs Plevin’s claim therefore failed in its entirety. Against this, Recorder Yip QC considered the conduct of Mrs Plevin’s legal representatives, Miller Gardner. Their costs, including a very significant ATE insurance premium, amounted to some £320,000 by the time of trial as against a maximum claim value of some £5,000. Despite the level of costs incurred, Recorder Yip QC also found that Miller Gardner had failed to get to the bottom of the factual case, this had caused the repeated amendments to Mrs Plevin’s claim and the eventual abandonment at trial of all but two of the heads of claim, and that there could be “no justification” for the way in which the claim had proceeded. As against this background, Paragon had made a without prejudice offer to Mrs Plevin back in 2010 on a commercial basis simply to see an end of the litigation. Miller Gardner had rejected that offer and therefore did significantly worse at trial than could have been achieved two years previously. Recorder Yip QC held that as a result, and given her “real concerns” over Miller Gardner’s conduct, it would be appropriate to order that Mrs Plevin pay Paragon’s costs on the indemnity basis in relation to the entirety of the action. This is the strongest order that a Court can make and is illustrative of the displeasure with which Miller Gardner’s conduct was regarded. It was clear from the amount in question as against the costs incurred that the litigation had been run only to benefit Mrs Plevin’s solicitors; and not to achieve the best result for her. Generally, given the findings by the Court of Appeal in Harrison and Recorder Yip QC in Plevin, claimant solicitors now have little chance of successfully continuing with claims in relation to PPI mis-selling. Further, the Courts are now very much alive to the fact that such claims cannot be regarded as being in borrowers’ best interests. The industry that has grown up around PPI should beware.
×
×
  • Create New...