Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Do I have a case?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5925 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

Hello everyone

This is my first post here. I have read avidly the posts in this section as I am planning on trying to get some justice.

 

About 3 years ago I had finished paying a loan off with Lloyds TSB when they contacted me asking if I would like another loan. I was in debt with credit cards so I thought it might be a good idea to take out enough to clear the cards.

 

However I was also on receipt of Incapacity benefit due to long standing condition. The manager said that this wasn't a problem but the underwriters insist that you take out a PPI as cover. When I said that it would be worthless as I wasn't able to work at that time re replied by saying "Well I'm sorry but no PPI no loan" or words to that affect.

 

The loan was for £11,000, the PPI was 2,689.88 and the APR 11.9%.

 

Do you think I have a case? I know it was my own fault for signing for it but I was a bit desperate and he knew that. By the way it's nearly £20,000 in repayments over 7 years.

 

Regards

 

PS Congratulations to the owners/developers of this forum. A fantastic job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, and welcome to the forum. From what you say you would certainly have a claim. Have a good read through the stickies at the top of this forum, and you will find some very helpful information to get you started.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again

Can anyone tell me where I can find the spreadsheet to calculate my interest payments on my PPI. Thanks in advanced.

 

PS My new bank, Nat West, received a visit from me today. Over the Christmas period there was a bit of confusion. One direct debit was asking for payment 2 days early whilst my benefit payment was a day late. I had £90 in my account, £41 went on the car insurance, £12 on other insurance and a payment for £13 went out. This left a total £24 in the account. On the same day Sky's dd appeared for £50 (2 days earlier than usual). Nat West declined to pay it, then took £38 out of my account for being naughty which put me £14 in the red????

 

Calmly I explained the situation to the nice lady on the desk (dropped in the fact that the account was funded by benefit payments) and as a good will gesture said she would waive the fee and it would be returned to my account this evening.

 

Not a massive result I know, but reading this forum has given me a real sense of empowerment. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi all

Well I sent my letter off to Lloyds at the beginning of the month and have just received a reply. Unsurprisingly they think that forcing unemployed people to take out a PPI is OK. Alright they never twisted my arm behind my back and forced me to sign but they did insist I took it out or there would be no loan, even though it was worthless.

 

Because I had signed the Acknowledgement of Purchase form then it was my own fault for not reading the small print.

I am about to send off my reply and await their final response.

 

I will keep you up to date.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could I ask someone to read through this letter that i have composed in reply to their letter please. I would appreciate your comments and advice:

 

Thank you for your reply dated 24 January 2008. I am disappointed but not wholly surprised at your response to my claim. I would like to reiterate the points I made regarding the selling of this loan protection plan to me.

 

At the time it was taken out I was Unemployed and in receipt of Incapacity Benefit which was paid into the above account, this is proof in itself that I was unemployed. This rendered the loan protection plan as worthless. The person who sold me this loan protection plan was completely aware of my employment status. I was also told that if I did not take this loan protection plan then I would not receive the loan, which, incidentally I was invited to apply for by my local branch.

 

I would like to, if I may, show you this taken from the FSA website. Although you are not the bank in question I believe the same rules apply to all Financial Institutions:

FSA/PN/004/2008

16 January 2008

“The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has fined HFC Bank Ltd (HFC) £1,085,000 for failing to take reasonable care to ensure that the advice it gave customers to buy Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) was suitable, and for failing to have adequate systems and controls for the sale of PPI.

From January 2005 to May 2007, HFC's procedures did not require advisers in its branch network to gather sufficient information about customers' circumstances and take sufficient information into account when considering whether PPI was suitable. HFC also did not require advisers to explain fully why they recommended a particular policy or identify to customers any demands and needs which the policy would not meet. These and other failings meant that HFC put its customers at an unacceptable risk of being sold PPI when it was not suitable for them.”

I believe the key words are “failing to take reasonable care to ensure that the advice it gave customers to buy Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) was suitable

This is the point that I am trying to convey to you. I was badly advised regarding this loan protection plan and would ask you to look at my claim again.

I look forward to receiving your response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

I think that they will give you the runaround for as long as you let them.

I think its essential that you do a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request),

Its a request for all the information they hold on you.

It should, in theory, contain transcripts of the actual sale of PPI.

They have to provide it within 40 days.

Sorry to be negative, but i think sending nice letters just delays your claim.

I dont think you can tell them anything they dont know already.

Just my opinion of course.

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.

 

NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tonycee

Thank you for your quick response. Do you think I should ask for the S.A.R in this letter or send another letter requesting them?

 

I do appreciate your advice regarding being "nice". It is much better than what I really want to say to them though :)

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to put your feelings to one side for the time being.

 

You can approach this in one of two ways.

 

1. You can send pretty please correspondence back and forth and get nowhere.

 

2. Be ruthless, like they would with you, and follow the proven method.

 

If you chose route 1. you will probably end up doing route 2. anyway, you will have just wasted several months in the meantime.

 

You can find the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) HERE.

Adapt/adjust, to suit your requirements.

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.

 

NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What i meant was, by writing letters that they can ignore, thats what they will do.

 

By being ruthless, i meant, use the legal system to your advantage.

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.

 

NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...