Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

HFC fined for PPI misselling - game over for them!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3980 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

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Another One Bites the Dust... Who will be Next ???

Lloyds TSB -PPI - Full refund . 05/09/06 :D:p (As Seen on TV) :p

Halifax settled in Full.. :D 22/09/06

TSB First Claim SETTLED IN FULL 19/10/06 :D

Second Claim to Lloyds TSB - Settled in Full

Firstplus - early settlement interest charges - Challenged the use of the rule of 78 - SETTLED IN FULL 12/1/07

PPI - GE Money / Purpleloans / Firstplus - Now Settled after 1 year long hard fight.

 

 

 

If my post has helped you, please click the scales! :grin:

 

Anything said is my opinion and how I understand the law, always consult professional legal advice before taking something to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The great thing with the Misrepresentation Act is that, once it is shown that the policy is unsuitable, it switches the burden of proof on to the seller to show that they acted correctly.

 

The fact that it has now been established that HFC were misselling policies between 2005 and 2007, it will be very difficult indeed for them to persuade a court that before then everything was fine.

 

It is worth noting that HFC could have appealed this decision, but they chose to accept the findings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you tell me if Swift Advances have been fined for PPi Miss-selling.

 

Many thanks

 

 

No - this is the full list, courtesy of MSE:

 

Who’s been fined so far?

  • HFC Bank, also trading as "Household Bank" and "Beneficial Finance": Fined £1,085,000, the highest fine to date, in January 2008 for putting customers at an unacceptable risk of being sold PPI when it was not suitable for them. Failings took place in branches between Jan 2005 and May 2007. More Info: HFC Bank
  • Hadenglen Home Finance Plc: Fined £182,000 in September 2007 for inadequate systems and controls when recommending re-mortgages and PPI. PPI failings took place between January 2005 and November 2006. More Info: Hadenglen Home Finance Ltd
  • Capital One: Fined £175,000 in February 2007 for failing to ensure that 50,000 customers buying credit cards and loans between January 2005 and April 2006 received important information about the policy. More info: Capital One
  • GE Capital Bank Ltd: (supplies cards for Asda, Comet, Debenhams and Topshop among others): Fined £610,000 in January 2007 for inappropriate sales of its store cards and credit cards. More info: GE Capital Bank Ltd
  • Loans.co.uk: Fined £455,000 in October 2006 for not having appropriate systems and controls to minimise the risk of unsuitable sales. More info: Loans.co.uk
  • Redcats: Fined £270,000 in December 2006 for also not having adequate systems and controls in place to minimise the risk of unsuitable sales. More info: Redcats
  • Regency Mortgage Corporation: Fined £56,000 in December 2006 for not collecting sufficient information during a PPI sale to ensure its recommendations met customers' demands and needs. More info: Regency Mortgage Corporation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Yes its great news for us all, my PPI is aprrox £7000 incl interest, which of course was mis-sold as i was not advised that i could go through a different insurer, i was not told the true amount of the PPI ie payments on top of the loan,the tatal APR charged, and i did not think the person who sold me the loan had my best interests at heart as i explained that i was self-employed and she didnt advise me otherwise.

 

Good luck to all claiming........"Bring it on"

 

Regards gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

just to extend the years that HFC have been mis-selling, my loan with the PPI i didnt need was sold to me in August 2004. It we be very interesting how what may HFC try to prove that my PPI was not mis-sold. I am prepared for anything and have nothing to loose as its all gone thanks to HFC, so they are in for 12 rounds of resentment.

 

Good luck.

 

Regards

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be able to test the waters with this, as I made a Part 18 request in relation to my claim which dates back to 1998. The information I asked for was regarding their internal procedures, commission, bonus structures, incentives, disincentives etc. - of course, they ignored it.

 

Earlier this month I filed an application for a Part 18 Order, and it has been listed for a hearing in mid-February. As yet, I have not had the paperwork, but as their defence has also been filed I am guessing it will be a full Case Management Conference.

 

If it is a CMC, then I will be asking the judge to consider making an order for full disclosure of issues regarding their PPI sales in 1998 based on the FSA findings for 2005-7.

 

It is definitely time to turn the screw.

 

Just as soon as I get confirmation through of the hearing I will post more on my thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Alan,

Sorry for not replying, i`ve been away. Anyway that part 18 order sounds interesting and should state a few aspects of their selling paractises/ procedures " A NICE TASTEY COOKIE", on another note, i`ve recently recieved my CCA and with that a copy of my PPI or PPI`S as it were, meaning that i paid a seperate preminum for my PPI incl ASU from Hamilton (part of HFC) i`ve also been charged £3600 from HFC for PPI which is solely for ASU from HFC, and they are really going have to justify why they can and have sold me PPI and charged me twice for the insurance against the same PPI product, and obviously the PPI including ASU from Hamilton is a vastly tiny proportion to the later of the charge

 

I`ll keep you up to date as my case continues.

Regards

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Alan,

This is my HFC CCA, and as a reply I sent the letter (one of the links below)on the date of issue, i think this explains my stance and what i expect to recieve.

Regards

Gordon

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj161/nodrog1972/CCA1a.jpg

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj161/nodrog1972/CCA1b.jpg

 

 

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj161/nodrog1972/responsetoCCADaramola.jpg

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj161/nodrog1972/responsetoCCAdaramolaa.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that sounds about right!! as it says just above the boxes "tick as applicable", once i`ve recieved a reply from the letter i sent ( if i get a reply) it will all be documented and fully explained to the governing bodies i spoke about posting a complaint to. They cant say anything to avoid those details especially as i've been charged twice, the argument still and will continue to stand until i get a FULL REFUND WITH INTEREST!!!, so you just keep plugging away it takes time but the reward of justice will be complete when your happy with the result your looking for.

 

Regards

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites

No probs:) ,it's gonna be a long one though, as the same person who mis-sold me the PPI give me mis-represented advice on what to do about payments as i had a change of circumstances back in april 2005, and subsequently due to that ill advice, HFC defaulted me in oct 2005 (did not find out till jan 2007) i have all details that an arrangement to pay was in place before HFC changed details on my credit file, i have all my payment history via bank statements etc etc, so they can "get s*****d", i aint goin anywhere, let the fight begin i say, it's their move now.

 

Regards

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

Just to say HFC have until 05/02/08 to come up with my request. If they dont then it's off to the OFT the FOS the information office, trading standards, then as of now i will be preparing my case in the small claims to fight a successfull 300 Battle. I am ready, let the fight begin.

 

Regards

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Just in case anyone has missed the announcement at the top of the forum regarding the class action against HFC, this is now gaining momentum.

 

I have been personally involved with the formation of the committee of claimants that will be driving the action forward, however if anyone else wishes to get on board then either contact me, or the PPICG (Payment Protection Insurance Claims Group) via the addresses given in the announcement.

 

We are looking for anyone who believes they may have been missold PPI by HFC, and is either at an early stage with their claim (perhaps up to exchange of AQ's) or has not yet commenced action.

 

Should your claim meet the criteria for joining the group, the solicitors (Clyde & Co LLB) have guaranteed that any adverse costs will be covered.

 

We are happy to answer any questions or concerns that you may have, and of course, any discussions will be treated as confidential.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...