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

welcome finance


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5935 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

I have today recieved my first knock back from WF for claiming missold PPI. I have penned my second letter with the evidence i believe that i was misold which is basically, when i first took out the loan i did not have PPI on, it yet when i moved house i wanted to refinace the loan and went to my new local office of welcome. They insisted that i took PPI or i wouldn't get the loan even though i pointed out the previous office hadn't made me take it and apart from moving house my employment was still the same as when i originally took out the loan so i stupidly took it so i could refinance.. is this a good basis to reclaim what i believe was mis sold PPI?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now recieved their final response in to the matter and they are not going to budge on it, they wont even answer my question as to why in one branch i have to have PPI and in another i don't. I amazes me that someone who can be given a job in such a high posistion can fail to answer such a simple question, and i fully believe if these people can get such high ranking jobs then surely there is hope for us all!!

Anyway, they have given me the option of taking my complaint to the FOS which having done so before and being let down i am inclinded to go down the court route (which, i did warn them on my final letter i would)

How would i go about this? I did my bank charges via this route but i am not sure as to how much i would claim or the paticulars of teh claim on teh court sheet.. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've looked through all the POC info but i'm still a bit confused as to which bits i shoulod be leaving in and which bit i should take out. I basically feel i was mis sold it because i was told no ppi no loan! as you can you can appreiciate, i don't want to cock it up!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the agreement which says:

 

Amount used to settle existing loan - 1029.28

Amount of news cash advanced - 500

medicare 24 - 50 ( i have no idea what this is)

 

Payment protection insuarance - 336.96

Amount of credit - 1916.24

Acceptance fee - 75

Total amount of loan 1991.24

 

monthly payent 114.43

APR 44.3%

Estimated repayment period 24 months

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Wills7

 

If you were clearly told that the PPI was compulsory and have evidence to support this, you have an excellent case for arguing the whole loan is legally unenforceable. The reason for this is that, for regulated loans (ie loans up to £25k) taken out prior to April last year, if they are not documented in a prescribed format, they are legally unenforceable. If PPI was a condition of the loan then it should have been documented as part of the Total Charge for Credit rather than as part of the loan. Your post indicates it was documented as part of the loan.

 

If you can prove you were told the PPI was compulsory, I'd go back to WF and say you will challenge the enforceability of the agreement under the CCA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnny - i've already had the 2 bog off letters form them and i've gone about asking for about it back the prescribed way.. On my last letter to them i told them i would be taking court action without further action should they not answer my questions as to why i was forced to take ppi as a condidtion of the loan and they didn't so i putting together my POC ready to file the claim.. The loan was taken out in 2005 originally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

medicare 24 - 50 ( i have no idea what this is)

 

My daughter has also discovered, not medicare 24, but lifecare 24, she nor my son-in-law were aware that they had been sold this. She has today written to them to have it removed and her account credited prior to settlement.

 

Will keep you updated

Regards

 

LilyLou

 

 

 

 

 

If I have been helpful please tip my scales

 

Any advice/comments I give are based solely on personal experience, if in doubt please consult an expert.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...