Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It’s truly inspirational to think their £460,000 “Partygate” performance piece has not yet reached its final form. That will come as early as today, when a number of the officers tasked with not spotting Boris Johnson in a series of piss-up photos get signed off with stress.   Only when they’ve been on the sick for two years, then retired with a full pension but also returned to a high-paying station desk job, will Partygate have attained the British establishment gold standard.   - Marina Hyde
    • Hi allets, CCA to whoever is the debt owner today, let us know their response, or lack there of, for further guidance   Or you could read up other like threads and the advice will be the same, so you'll know what to expect   BT
    • OK, let's get stuck into these damn fleecers.  Building on last night's version, new bits in red.   LFI, can you check I've understood the POFA bits properly that you suggested (4.  NO KEEPER LIABILITY)?  Thanks.     IN THE COUNTY COURT SHEFFIELD    CLAIM NO: XXXX   HX PARKING LTD  (CLAIMANT) VS XXX (DEFENDANT)   Date: 3rd May 2022   Witness Statement   1. I, Mr XXX, of xxx am the Defendant against whom this claim is made.   1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXX.   1.2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.   INSUFFICIENT & CONFUSING SIGNAGE   2. I confirm that i was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle which is in question in this case and the vehicle was parked in Alma Leisure Centre, Chesterfield. The vehicle was parked there because the driver went to McDonald’s for eat in (bank statement proof exhibit 1).   2.1. There were no clear signs at the entrance nor in the car park, it was night time and weather was not clear as well.   2.2.  In their Witness Statement opposing my set aside application the Claimant includes a site plan showing the position of their signs and a close up of a sign to make it look like it is featured in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest billboard in world history.   2.3.  The reality for the motorist is completely different.  I attach photos, some from Google Earth but most taken by myself, which show what a motorist sees when approaching the site in daylight (exhibit 2).  There is no sign at the entrance.  The car then drives past a gym and a cinema without encountering any signs.  When then parking in the car park outside McDonald's once again there is dearth of signage.  Admittedly a motorist who perhaps came out with binoculars might just about be able to make out signs in the far distance mounted on various buildings.   2.4.  The driver visited the site around midnight.  I further attach photos taken at night from the McDonald's area (exhibit 3) and defy whoever is representing HX Parking at the hearing to point out the signs the driver should have read.  There aren't any.  I have not doctored these photos in any way or deliberately not photographed visible signs.  There simply are no visible signs.   2.5.  Even if the driver had seen the signs, they would have been extremely confusing.  A car is normally allowed to be parked for five hours, yet after midnight this is changed to one hour.  This begs the question for how long a motorist entering at 10pm for example is allowed to stay.  Is it for five hours until 3am or until 1am?   2.6. The PCN/NTK states "period of parking 00:02:05".  It is common sense that a couple of minutes was needed to enter the complex, find McDonald's and find a parking space, before the period of parking began, so it is likely the car entered the car park before midnight allowing the driver to park the car there for five hours.   2.7.  Even if the driver had seen the signage - they did not - the mention of a £100 charge is literally the last word on the last line of a long board of text.   UNFAIR TERM   3.  In an interview with the local newspaper (exhibit 4) Ms Ellie Berkeley, HX PCN administration team leader, said: “The five-hour maximum stay prevents workers from close by abusing the land and parking there for free, without using the shops on site" which makes sense.   3.1.  This therefore begs the question of why this limit is cut by a massive 80% after midnight when the cinema and eateries are still open.  The driver indeed ate at McDonald's.   3.2.  Ms Berkeley continued: "Five hours is sufficient time to visit the cinema and also eat at a restaurant".  Certainly five hours are sufficient.  One hour is not.    3.3.  I would maintain this is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 part 2 section 62 (6) ""A notice is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer".  Such a term has absolutely nothing to do with efficient management of a car park and everything to do with trying to catch diners or cinema-goers out and thus have an excuse to issue PCNs.   NO KEEPER LIABILITY   4. The Particulars of Claim do not clarify in what capacity they believe I am liable but state that the Defendant is “liable as the driver or keeper” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability.     4.1.  The Claimant's PCN does not comply with Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  POFA states that a parking period must be stated and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit.  All that takes time.   4.2.  To transfer liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper, in their PCN the Claimant must include the wording at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)" but they have not. That in itself makes it non-compliant.   LOCUS STANDI   5.  Looking at the contract with the landowner which the Claimant included when opposing my set aside application, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companies have been redacted.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of who actually signed.   5.1.  There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow court action in pursuit of non payers.   In section 11 which is like an addendum it states "the Company shall provide parking control" but does not state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.   ILLEGAL SIGNAGE   6.  After checking, I have found out that there in NO planning permission granted for said signs, therefore making them illegal as lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.   6.1.  The Claimant is supposed to comply with the law and the IPC Code of Conduct and they have done neither.  The new government Private Parking Code of Practice draws attention as well to s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."   ABUSE OF PROCESS   7. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.    7.1.  As part of the provisions of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 07/02/2022 a new Code of Practice was published by the government, designed to prevent these “rogue” traders from "ripping people off" (the minister's words) with extra charges, which have been deemed unfair (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/privateparking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice).    7.2.  Section 9 of the new Code of Practice, regulates the matter of recovery costs: “The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued” (exhibit 5).   7.3.  Even before publication of the government’s Code of Practice, Parliament intended that private parking companies could not invent extra charges. PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper” which in this case is £100.    7.4.  Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated ‘’Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’’   7.5.  In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ‘’It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''    7.6. The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   Statement of Truth    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.   I understand that proceedings for contempt of Court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
    • Hi dx100uk. I didn't know about the above. Do I request a new CCA from Cabot? Are you  also suggesting that I stop payments to Cabot until this is sorted out?  I have since then built up a good credit rating from the reference agencies  and would not like to turn this sour again. It took some time to get straight. Allets.
    • ah! FCA their new name (well 15yrs ago) for the FSA.   interesting they helped here this must mean they have had a series of complaints then.   dx      
  • Our picks

Brighthouse "Optional" service cover


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3080 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 all

 

After a long successful fight with Lloyds TSB I decided to hang my gloves up and have a rest :D

 

However now I've come on here (actually looking for something else) and a couple of threads caught my eye about Brighthouse, having read them at length I have to say its given me an appetite to get the gloves on again.

 

Having been a customer with BH for alot of years I have never once defaulted on a payment so have never been subjected to their exhorbitant penalty charges, although I have every time been forced to take the "optional" service cover.

 

On looking back at a few of the agreements I've had in the past (well the ones I've been able to lay my hands on) I've calculated that they've had a whopping £1503.64 just in this so called "optional" service cover.

 

And so my question is this.... Can I claim back the so called "optional" service cover on the agreements that are now paid in full or is it money badly spent never to be recovered??

 

I'm already preparing my letter to hand in this weekend with regards to cancelling the "optional" service cover I'm paying at present and look forward to saving myself some money in a weeks time :lol:

 

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated... boy its good to be back :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

This is something I have often thought about, and am at the moment in the process of researching! ;)

 

The key factor on this one is getting Optional Service Cover called by it's real name... Payment Protection Insurance - cuz THAT'S what it really is!

 

...and we all know what happens if Payment Protection Insurance is mis-sold!!!!!!! :)

 

 

Don't go away, because I reckon we have Brighthouse at centre stage right now.

 

 

Cheers

Lefty

 

PS - Just out of interest, are you also paying out for Damage Liability Insurance as well?

If the left side of the brain controls your right, and the right side controls your left, then left-handed people are always in their right mind!

 

Please help to support this site with a small donation... every little helps...

 

CAG- The Nation's Weekly Info Store!

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between this and PPI is that you will generally not have a problem claiming on service cover. Most of the problems with PPI are that the customer did not meet the requirements and could therefore never claim - thus it was unsuitable for purpose and clearly missold.

 

Proving misrepresentation without misselling would be more difficult in my opinion.

 

Having said that, if you can prove that the product would be covered by your household insurance at the time, you MIGHT have a starting point.

Alan, Derby, UK.

 

 

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

 

Sorry, but I cannot deal with your case by PM - please ask questions in your own thread. If you do not get a reply within 48 hours send a PM, with a link to the relevant thread, to any Site Team Member.

 

DO NOT SEND QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR CLAIM TO ADMIN, or our WEBMASTER - YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE A REPLY.

 

Advice given is purely my opinion, and is not based on any legal training.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Went in to pay my account os Saturday as normal and Brighthouse very kindly printed me of a copy of my current agreements as I was unable to find them at home and WOW..... I'll actually be saving £40 per month.

 

Really can't wait to find out if I can reclaim all the 'optional' service cover I've already paid to them.

 

:shock::D :o :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a hefty price for service cover. :eek:

Alan, Derby, UK.

 

 

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

 

Sorry, but I cannot deal with your case by PM - please ask questions in your own thread. If you do not get a reply within 48 hours send a PM, with a link to the relevant thread, to any Site Team Member.

 

DO NOT SEND QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR CLAIM TO ADMIN, or our WEBMASTER - YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE A REPLY.

 

Advice given is purely my opinion, and is not based on any legal training.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You think thats bad... I worked out that over the years and past agreements I've paid out over £1500 just in service cover alone... and thats not even taking into consideration the amount I've already paid on my current agreements :Cry:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

If they make it a condition of the agreement that you must take out the 'optional' service plan the agreement would have a mis-stated charge for credit and therefore would be unenfrceable. The problem is just proving it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi can anyone tell me if you come across with this if you got no home insurance you got to have the bh service cover

 

You DO NOT have to take the Brighthouse "Optional" Service Cover (OSC) at all - and, if it's been applied to your agreement already, cancel it NOW!

 

However, withour proof of suitable home contents insurance, they will insist you take their Damage Liability Cover (DLC).

 

If you need any further help, get straight back to us.

 

 

Cheers

Lefty

If the left side of the brain controls your right, and the right side controls your left, then left-handed people are always in their right mind!

 

Please help to support this site with a small donation... every little helps...

 

CAG- The Nation's Weekly Info Store!

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for that ive had loads of things and have been told had to have the service cover im not happy bout this some things ive had cover on it ive paid now so ive paid alot of money out when i didnt have to and got cover on 3 know will be phoning head office

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another issue with OSC is that it covers against faults/failures of the item bought which is actually covered by the manufacturer's guarantee, at least for the first year (sometimes 2 years). So if they claim it is to cover breakdown during the first year I think you could go for mis-sold on that basis (sequenci?)

 

After posting this, I decided to investigate a bit further. Firstly, there is nothing about OSC on the website. I rang Customer Servies on the 0800 number on the web and spoke to a sales rep. He knew nothing about OSC and suggested I rang my local store which I did.

 

They told me that OSC mainly affects returnability - you can return the item (apparently) for any reason and have no liability to pay anything more and it also covers breakdowns once the manufacturer's warranty has expired.

 

Again, sequenci or others willcorrect me if I'm wrong, but:-

 

1) returnability - under an HP agreement, once you have paid half the value of the goods, you can return them without further charge. THus OSC is only any value until you have paid half.

 

2) breakdown - as noted above, manufacturer's warranty covers the goods for the first year (poosibly 2 years). If you take out an extended warranty with any of the other High Street retailers, you only pay after the manufacturer's warranty has expired.

 

So, in both cases, you are paying for a 'service' during a period when it is not needed beacuse the 'servie' in question is actually provided (free) by law.

Steven

 

Using CAG Toolbar will generate much needed income - Download Here

 

Confused by Simple Interest? Confounded by Compound Interest? Read my Interest Tutorial

My Wins

 GE Money Won unconditionally May 2007

NatWest Won unconditionally August 2007

Brighthouse Won unconditionally August 2007

Goldfish Won unconditionally April 2008 (including CI on the basis of Sempra)

Clydesdale Financial Services (now BPF) Won unconditionally February 2008

 

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. Do not take any legal action on my advice alone. Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site.

 

Please note, I will not give advice by PM. Please send a link to your thread and I will do my best to answer there.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You DO NOT have to take the Brighthouse "Optional" Service Cover (OSC) at all - and, if it's been applied to your agreement already, cancel it NOW!

 

However, withour proof of suitable home contents insurance, they will insist you take their Damage Liability Cover (DLC).

 

If you need any further help, get straight back to us.

 

 

Cheers

Lefty

what about things i got about a year ago and still paying for can i still cancel them im not happy about this

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy,

 

Brighthouse “Optional” Service Cover agreements are underwritten by Brighthouse parent company, Caversham Finance, and are added to your hire purchase agreement as an additional weekly payment.

 

You should cancel any “Optional” Service Cover policies you have now! Because:

 

a) the service cover was most likely applied automatically without giving you the option to choose whether you required it or not, and

 

b) the service cover is extremely over-priced and represents very poor value for money when compared to a typical manufacturer’s own extended warranty as the following examples show.

 

Hewlett Packard Extended Warranty - Available upon registering a new Hewlett Packard product or at the end of the manufacturer’s 12 month guarantee period

 

A single one off payment of £88.99 which provides an additional 2 years of cover to the initial 12 months guarantee period, giving a total of 3 years cover. This cover includes collection and return, all parts and labour and a brand new replacement product if any repair is not completed within 28 days

 

Caversham Finance (Trading as Brighthouse) “optional” service cover

 

104 weekly payments of £5.77 (total £600.10) providing service cover for the 2-year duration of the agreement. (As Hewlett Packard guarantees all new products for the first twelve months regardless, this figure only represents one year of actual extended service cover. The cost of this cover is extortionate and, quite simply, cannot be justified.

 

Of course, “Optional” Service Cover isn’t really service cover at all. As we’ve already established, all new products are subject to a 12 months manufacturer’s warranty, (which, of course, is in addition to your statutory rights – and in the case of hire purchase agreements more specifically THE SUPPLY OF GOODS ACT (IMPLIED TERMS) 1973...) and any volume purchaser like Brighthouse will be able to negotiate massive discounts with outside service agents for any repairs that may occur at other times. No. “Optional” Service Cover is really a thinly disguised payment protection plan that protects the interests of Brighthouse and NOT you!

 

Brighthouse also appear somewhat confused over the word “optional.” My interpretation (having studied their terms and conditions) is that service cover is an “option” to purchase at the time of the initial agreement and cancellation thereafter will require 7 days notice. However, Brighthouse will say “optional” means the option not to purchase the service cover can only be exercised at the time of the initial agreement and, furthermore, cannot be removed thereafter!

 

This is a complete lie. Service cover is optional and can be removed. Of course, an attempt remove it will invoke fierce resistance from Brighthouse! Store managers have been briefed by their area managers regarding this “growing problem” as more and more customers are getting wise and seeing through the con that this service cover is! You can thank forums like this one for that!

 

To remove optional service cover from your agreement(s) (whether new or existing), put a request in writing to your store (and to head office). Once this has been done the store has to comply with your request. Quote your terms and conditions:

 

“Your Obligations: Optional Service Cover

Section C (b) The service cover premium is renewable each time your regular instalment is due under the agreement. If the premium is not paid Service Cover will lapse.

 

Section H (3) This policy shall continue in force until you give seven days notice…”

 

You may also like to quote this extract from a transcript of the BBC 4 programme, “Money Box.”

 

“BrightHouse is the trading name of a company in Reading, Caversham Finance Limited. It refused requests for an interview, but in a statement said:

 

STATEMENT: All charges, terms and obligations in every agreement we make with our customers are explained in easily understood language in a personal presentation in store before the agreement is signed. We then test customers on their understanding of the agreement. The optional insurances offered and accepted by this customer were clearly explained and the customer had every opportunity to cancel either at the start of the agreement or at any time during it…”

 

DAMAGE LIABILITY INSURANCE

 

Brighthouse “Damage Liability Insurance” agreements are, once again, underwritten by Brighthouse parent company, Caversham Finance, and are added to your hire purchase agreement as yet another additional weekly payment.

 

This insurance policy (around £250 on a £800 cash price product) is loaded AUTOMATICALLY and will only be removed if you can supply proof of "suitable" home contents insurance. (Brighthouse reserve the right to determine what is and what is not "suitable". In fact, very few home contents policies will specifically include items subject to a hire purchase agreement.)

 

You are told this insurance covers the product for damage, theft, fire, flood etc. However, unlike "real" home contents insurance it WILL NOT provide you with a replacement product should it become necessary (not even like-for-like) and will only, at best, release you from your agreement with Brighthouse - who, ultimately, benefit from the policy. You end up with NOTHING!!! Furthermore, in the event of a claim, the store manager will have the final say as to whether the policy should apply. He may, for instance, decide the goods where stolen or damaged because you didn’t secure or look after them adequately.

 

Basically, “Optional Service Cover” (above) and “Damage Liability Cover” is just one big payment protection policy split into two and sold (forced) onto the customer at an EXTORTIONATE cost.

 

The two insurance policies combined – and based upon a typical £800 cash price product – would eventually cost an extra £850.00

 

 

Cheers

Lefty

If the left side of the brain controls your right, and the right side controls your left, then left-handed people are always in their right mind!

 

Please help to support this site with a small donation... every little helps...

 

CAG- The Nation's Weekly Info Store!

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks everyone ive spoken to head office and your right it is optional so im having my osc taken off from this week so i was miss sold this everytime bout 8 time over the past 3 years and still paying for some now so ive asked to have the money refund back to me because i was made to take osc out at all time or i was not aloud to have the items after telling them i didnt want it on so am i in my rights to asked for the money to be refund because i was missold and what can i do to get it back i was told to speak to the manager this week the refund about £700 and thanks again everyone :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy

 

Let us know how you get on - this could be important for lots of people.

Steven

 

Using CAG Toolbar will generate much needed income - Download Here

 

Confused by Simple Interest? Confounded by Compound Interest? Read my Interest Tutorial

My Wins

 GE Money Won unconditionally May 2007

NatWest Won unconditionally August 2007

Brighthouse Won unconditionally August 2007

Goldfish Won unconditionally April 2008 (including CI on the basis of Sempra)

Clydesdale Financial Services (now BPF) Won unconditionally February 2008

 

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. Do not take any legal action on my advice alone. Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site.

 

Please note, I will not give advice by PM. Please send a link to your thread and I will do my best to answer there.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

take a look at my post brighthouse

You can get OSC & DLC Removed as long as you give them 7 days notice also you do NOT need to SIGN A NEW AGREEMENT

any Q's Contact me

Please Tip My Scales if Info was Use full

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Any further with this yet, Andy?

 

 

 

Cheers

Lefty

If the left side of the brain controls your right, and the right side controls your left, then left-handed people are always in their right mind!

 

Please help to support this site with a small donation... every little helps...

 

CAG- The Nation's Weekly Info Store!

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump Bumpity Bump!

 

Greetings folks!

 

Hopefully, we will have successfully lured you back to this thread via a “new post” notification email! :wink:

 

We are trying to collect stories of people's experience with Brighthouse. Eventually we would like to make up a dossier.

 

We would like to know about how Brighthouse staff have treated you, particularly if you have got behind with payments.

 

We would also like to know if you have been pressurised to take out any insurance or optional service cover (OSC).

 

Furthermore we would like to know about problems you have had with goods from this company and how Brighthouse have handled repairs or replacements.

 

Here is the link to the thread to post your stories.

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/brighthouse/131337-brighthouse-horror.html

 

 

Please don't add your story to this thread. Use the thread in the link above.

 

 

 

Cheers

Lefty

If the left side of the brain controls your right, and the right side controls your left, then left-handed people are always in their right mind!

 

Please help to support this site with a small donation... every little helps...

 

CAG- The Nation's Weekly Info Store!

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

They will try and tell you that you must. Why are you buying from these people anyway?

Steven

 

Using CAG Toolbar will generate much needed income - Download Here

 

Confused by Simple Interest? Confounded by Compound Interest? Read my Interest Tutorial

My Wins

 GE Money Won unconditionally May 2007

NatWest Won unconditionally August 2007

Brighthouse Won unconditionally August 2007

Goldfish Won unconditionally April 2008 (including CI on the basis of Sempra)

Clydesdale Financial Services (now BPF) Won unconditionally February 2008

 

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. Do not take any legal action on my advice alone. Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site.

 

Please note, I will not give advice by PM. Please send a link to your thread and I will do my best to answer there.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3080 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...