Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • if i remember rightly, long ago in one of the first drafts of the old proposed gov't overhauls, there was a listing of recommended 'charges' that inc wrong reg = £20. some PPC's implemented such changes in advance. then later as it looked increasing likely the new code was never going to be implemented after it's 1st review and another set of codes was to be debated they all quietly revert back .......... dx
    • Potentially it may not even get sold on? Just the default left for 6 years then gone? but if it is sold on ill get a letter from the DCA which is the notice of assignment? Sorry what is the different between a default notice and a default cal marker? yes, i may try and work arrangements out with the OCs after the breathing space but I'll see my circumstances then thank you again for all your help and patience, I really appreciate it and apologies If i am too fast or repeating myself.
    • receiving a default NOTICE (forget simple default cal markers) does not mean it will get sold on... OC's very very rarely do court themselves.  if it does you would receive a Notice of Assignment from the debt buyer/DCA.  as for reduced payment if it remains with the OC and they issue a DN, no harm in trying but lets get all your ducks inline first. dx  
    • okay thanks do you know how long it will take for it to get to the DCA or could the OC try and issue a CCJ? even though it's unlikely also for example would the OC agree to a reduction and a small payment over a super lengthy period of time if agreed? Rather than go through chasing apologies again for all the questions, just trying to understand all the possible scenarios.  
    • Currently - "the maximum daily price at 100p / kWh for electricity and 30p / kWh for gas – keep in mind that's a lot higher than the Ofgem Energy Price Cap, so if you can't afford prices to increase further, you're probably better off sticking with a protected tariff such as Flexible Octopus." Octopus Tracker is a product of our labs, available now to customers through our beta programme. Octopus Tracker is a beta product. Some things may not work the first time, and installations and processes may take longer than we'd like. Third party tech like In-home Displays won't always work, and on occasion data issues with smart meters can take significant time to fix or prevent things from working at all.   Copied straight from octopus   Feel free to shove it somewhere else    
  • 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 
        • 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

First Plus PPP claim refused- Help needed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5888 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

after reading this section of the website, I decided to put in a claim to first plus for 7 1/2 thousand PPI insurance, paying over 25 years working out at 19.5 loads of money. I went to this company because their adverts sounded good and clear, yet what i experienced was anything but, however it was only supposed to be a temporary measure and get paid off within a year. Things didn't go quite as planned, job losses and the arrival of a new baby made everything go pear shaped and now in need of financial resurecting (sorry can't spell) started looking in to ways can raise some cash. Came across here and though well lets have a look.

 

Anyway letter sent stating that they account manager had not taken in to account that my own situation with work (i.e get full sick pay for year and have good redundancy package) and that we were not offered the loan without the ppp plan in place and wanted to reclaim the cash.

 

Response received today

 

Apology for us contacting them

They have reviewed the sales call and foudn that I had answered a demands and needs questionnaire and this ascertained that I did indeed have a requirement for this PPP ( I don't recall this being discussed) and I had received a copy of it with the loan agreement (never did)

Apparently, I was advised of the loan payment etc without the PPP plan, (definitely not) and that it would not affect our application if we chose not to take it.

Again, supposedly advised that it was optional (don't recall this either) or that if we settled the loan early we would not get back the full premium. I recall being told that if we paid it for 5 years then we would get all the insurance premium returned (but it wasn't our intention at the time to have the loan for 5 years)

And lastly, it states the the credit agreement we signed clearly states that we chose to insure our loan. There is no opt out on the form, the only thing I could see was a highlighted box that we could tick if you wanted single or joint cover (i didn't tick any, yet my photocopied return is ticked - wonder how that happened.)

 

My biggest annoyance is that I never ever take out insurance because I don't believe in them, they are not effective when you need them and are nothing short of a bloody rip off. I don't even protect my mortgate because I am so against them. I am positive that had i been offered the opportunity to take out this loan without this being added on then that would have been the case.

 

I have now written back to first plus saying that i do not recall much of the conversation and that if they have a copy of this then they should send me a transcript of it and highlight where it became apparent to them in the demands and needs questionnaire that i needed to have this policy. I feel that given my own employment situation and at the time that of my partner was secure and both positions offered good sick pay and excellent redundancy packages, I already had life cover in place that well exceeded my outstanding mortgage and I saw no reason at that time of any impending involuntary unemployment which is all we would be covered for.

If anyone has any suggestions on anything else I can add or should be doing to make this claim successful then that would be great, I am quite ignorant of the law and sometimes go off on a whirlwind but really want to make this stick

cheers in anticipatoin

Michelle

Any views expressed on this site are my personal opinion or experience and do not represent legal advice in any way

 

 

:o :rolleyes: Michelle ;):) :o

 

Halifax: ************ WON ***************

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Michelle. Not sure form the above when you took out your loan but I guess it was quite recently. FIRSTPLUS use an automated decision engine to determine whether or not to sell PPI. They ask a series of scripted questions, type in the answers and then the computer tells them whether or not PPI should be recommended. Ask for the call recordings together with copies of the responses that were typed into the decision engine and the result from the engine. If they have not input the correct information, you may have a claim. If they have typed in the answers you gave correctly you'll find it more difficult to argue it was missold. Did you tell FIRSTPLUS that you intended to pay off the loan after a short period? If you did, you definitely have a claim as these loans are not designed for short-term borrowing and so it should not have been sold to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI, we took out the loan January 2007. I am sure I mentioned that we only intented borrowing till approx November of same (which was when our building work should have been completed). I have asked for transpcripts of the conversation but will change letter to ask for copies of the call recordings. thanks for that is very helpful

Michelle

Any views expressed on this site are my personal opinion or experience and do not represent legal advice in any way

 

 

:o :rolleyes: Michelle ;):) :o

 

Halifax: ************ WON ***************

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your written requests fail to get result then send a Subject Access Request (SAR) in writing asking for the information in line with the Data Protection Act 1998 you have to send a statutory fee of £10 a postal order will do nicely. They then supposedly send you all the info you require. It doesn't always work as the delaying tactics come into play.

 

 

see the sticky posted by hellhasnofury for a comprehensive SAR letter template.

 

good luck

 

aa

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

------------------------------------------------

Bank charge successes:

Halifax - Full settlement incl interest.

HSBC - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 75% of claim.

RBS - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 70% of claim.

2 ongoing claims for bank charges with HSBC with more to come. (Supreme Court ruling could have upset these claims) They did :mad:

PPI Successes

PPI 4 settlements on 9 loans. FOS involvement on 7 added on the 8 % Statutory interest another 30% to both.

2 claims settled in full with LV without FOS involvement.

2 claims settled in full with HSBC without FOS involvement

 

PPI Claims ongoing with:

Cap one Now with the FOS

Barclays. Paid up today 24/04/10 cheque received for over £4,500 and in the bank.

LTSB still have to decide on this as their SAR production was abysmal. Papers data mixed up documents missing etc

 

1 Complaint not upheld by FOS they said it was ICO issue. Complaint upheld by ICO. See this..

Post 290 from

***RBS PPI Claim Long fight but, WON***

 

Please do not PM me for advice as it may be sometime before I can respond.

 

Keep at them. Do not give way and do not accept all they tell you, they will delay and stall for as long as they can to prevent repaying you your mis-sold PPI.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...