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

Black Horse PPI? need some help and advise


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5158 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 leehind,

 

1. The Claimant opened a Consumer Credit Agreements with Black Horseon date.The account/reference number is *******which was a Payment Protection Planagreement with a total of £**** . I will refer to this as the “Agreement”.

 

2. The Agreement included Payment Protection Insurance (“PPI”) which was taken out at the same time.

 

3. The Claimant contends that the PPI relating to the Agreement, was only purchased as a result of pressure and misleading and/or incorrect advice given by the Staff Memberemployed by Black Horse Ltd.

 

4. The Claimant believes that a reasonable level of care and skill was not offered to the Claimant by the Manager during the sales process, and that therefore Black Horsefailed to meet its obligations under the terms of section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

 

5. The Claimant believes it is inconceivable that a person, occupying a management position within a multi-national company specialising in personal finance, would not have been given full training in the eligibility requirements for a product that provides a considerable boost to its profitability through commission and interest.

 

6.The Claimant contends that comments were made by the Manager which indicated that the loan applications may be refused without PPI, and the fact that it was optional was never mentioned. Indeed, when the forms were provided for signature, the relevant boxes for PPI were already marked.

 

7. The Claimant contends that there was no information provided of alternative options, or comparative costs of similar PPI products from other suppliers. (This link may give support to para 7

 

Current inquiry by the Competition Commission into PPI PRELIMINARY FINDINGS this is ongoing......

http://www.competition-commission.or.../pdf/18-08.pdf

 

 

8. The Claimant contends that the PPI was sold with a view to meeting sales targets and providing bonuses and commission for the Manager and staff, rather than to help the Claimant attain a better financial position.

 

 

In considering this, and all matters in this claim, the Claimant asks the court to take into account the following Principles of Business which are legally binding on Black Horseunder the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000, and are contained in the FSA Handbook:

 

Principle 1 Integrity - A firm must conduct its business with integrity.

 

Principle 2 Skill, care and diligence - A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence.

 

Principle 3 Management and control - A firm must take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems.

 

Principle 5 Market conduct - A firm must observe proper standards of market conduct.

 

Principle 6 Customers' interests - A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.

 

Principle 7 Communications with clients - A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading.

 

Principle 8 Conflicts of interest - A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client.

 

Principle 9 Customers: relationships of trust - A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment.

 

The Claimant seeks damages and other sums, as listed below, against the Defendant under Common Law, and/or section 2 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, and/or section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974:

 

The claimant claims that Black horse Ltd a sum equivalent estimated to the total amount unlawfully debited to my account during the above mentioned period, being £****.I further claim interest pursuant to s69 of the county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum, I further claim the court fee of £***

 

 

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true.

 

Signed:

 

Date:

 

I have not been to Court yet but if I have to I will give you a call to ask for help on my POC.;) It seems to me to be quite a nice POC but I am not in the legal frame yet.

 

Good luck

 

aa

Edited by alanalana
quotes out of synch

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

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

ok here is the update.. filed my n1 form and poc. Got a responce from black horse's solicitors within days and they are defending the case. So looks like all the way to court. Has anyone actually been to court? Need help in compliling a court bundle any help would be appreciated. will keep you all updated with the outcome

Link to post
Share on other sites

Planning ahead is always a good idea... but you don't need to be worrying about Court bundles yet.

 

Any trial date is a long way off.

 

Lots of people have been to Court; but PPI claims are, by their very nature a different kettle of coconuts from the easy win, bank charges claims of a couple of years ago.

 

Every PPI claim will turn on its own facts. Therefore, the onus on the Claimant to plead the law (that is relevant to their particular claim) correctly and susequently meet the evidential burden of proof on the facts, is not inconsiderable.

 

There is very little worthwhile you can do whilst waiting for a Defence, other that check, double check and triple check what the last date for filling the Defence is... that way you'll be waiting at the door of the Court with your, perfectly prepared, request for Judgment in Default at 9.50am (Court offices open at 10.00am), the very next day.

 

Whatever, you do DON'T remind them that they only have x more days to enter their Defence. (either in person, in writing or by advertising the fact here...)

 

Keep quiet, do your research and otherwise engage in masterly inactivity.

 

When they file their Defence... post a link to it here... having removed/ obscured/modified any of the personal info in it, the name of the Court and the dates of in the pleadings and anything else that would make it easy to work out from the Document... who you are.

 

Discussing your litigation strategy in public (with the potential of it being monitored by the other side) is recipe for disaster... and don't forget the Bank will know exactly what they put in their Defence.

[B]Gamekeeper turned Poacher.[/B] [B][SIZE=1][COLOR=silver]Disclaimer:[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B] [SIZE=1][COLOR=silver]My posts only contain general information and my opinion and they are provided on the sole basis that you will not rely on them. Nothing in them is, or should be considered as, legal advice.[/COLOR][/SIZE] [SIZE=1][COLOR=silver]No warranties, representations or undertakings about any of the content of my posts is given including, but without limitation, any as to the quality, accuracy, completeness or fitness for any particular purpose.[/COLOR][/SIZE] [SIZE=1][COLOR=silver]If you require legal advice, you should consult and retain a suitably qualified lawyer.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi

 

I find this forum very interesting, now I find that some of the information like another member stated is a little contradicting. Now your going down the route of mis-selling, now in one of your answers on here you said you were never told about the ppi, but in your very 1st one you say that you thought the ppi was compulsory therefore you must have had a conversation with the person at Blackhorse about the ppi.

 

Now everything in this world is optional even the loan so did it not occur at any point to check any of the documents as I have seen these document packs and they substantial.

 

When reading the letter Blackhorse has sent you it states in there that you have signed a demands and needs statement, now you would have again had time at least to look at the demands and needs statement so how can you not have looked at all the points on this. Also a credit agreement would normally be signed which I know clearly points out the costs of the insurance seperately to the loan even though it bands under one payment when collecting your monthly installment.

 

Now im not biased in anyway towards Blackhorse but if your going to put a case together dont make the mistakes you have made on this forum because id assume a part of one of the biggest Banking businesses in the UK would eat this kind of contradiction for breakfast.

Edited by thdon123
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting points you made there thdon123 ,with reguards to my own claim, thank you.

A demands and needs statement eh?

I have not seen one of those and not filled one in. I can guarantee, that in my case , the PPI was not sold as being optional, its very inclusion in the agreement presented to me to sign confirms this. At the time i took out my loan i was a little nieve and did not know my rights, i was under the impression that the PPI was compulsary and was not told otherwise by Black Horse staff and in fact my employment at that time was not even mentioned.

Thank you for your imput, i find your comments very helpfull with my case .

hello all:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

yes i agree i did make some school boy errors but hey i am not an expert in this field, however quick update. Even with my errors the case is coming to a quick end. Had a letter from the solicitor asking if i would go into out of court settlement talks. so this is in motion.

 

Also a friend of mine has won his case against blackhorse last week. They have paid out fully on the PPI includes 8% and given a goodwill compensation payout

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 10 months later...

Is anyone any further with claiming back ppi from black horse?

I have not taken mine any further yet as i have had other issues .

I am now in a position to continue with this issue.

hello all:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...