Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for the clear info. about how the estate and parking is organised.   Considering most letters drafted here are a load of abuse directed at the private parking companies, I thought the language was very restrained!  There's not an insult in there 🤣  More seriously, all the legal points in the letter are correct and I think it's good to go.  The agency "should" act and get the ticket withdrawn, but on the other hand they might well not have a clue about the law and refuse to cooperate, even if that would be worse for both you and them.  Still, it's only a stamp and nothing ventured ...   Do you know the history of the industry?  Once upon a time there was only one trade association, the BPA, with a half-decent appeals body POPLA, which often found in favour of the motorist.  This situation was unbearable for the more crooked of the PPCs like UKCPM who trotted off to a new rival association where the IPC association, its appeals body the IAS, and the firm of solicitors who most usually take on these cases ... are all run by the same people!  No conflict of interest there!  The IAS twist everything to always find in favour of the PPC.  The best analogy I can think of is the Mafia.  The Mafia no doubt have their own internal logic about oaths, what amount of protection money it is reasonable to demand, what you can to someone who cooperates with the police - none of which has any connection to the law of the country.  That's how the IAS operate.  Motorists who appeal just encourage the PPC by showing respect for their crooked "procedures", and are at risk of throwing their legal protection under the POFA away by outing themselves as the driver.   If you look in our PPC Successes thread at the top of the page (starting from the most recent cases), concentrating on cases that went to court, you'll see that in their Witness Statements the fleecers do indeed often say the motorist "should" have appealed.  I can't remember one case where the judge was the slightest bit interested in that argument.   It'll be somewhere in the POFA, Schedule 4.
    • make sure your PDF is lees than 4.8Mb's.   why wont it upload what is the error?   dx  
    • Thanks for all the help, folks, in terms of whether to reply or allege harassment - well being harassed itself it is advised anyway not to respond to them in the first instance. So as Fruit Salad and DX says ignore until letter of claim and not confirm ID which is what I will do.   As I said I note it here as part of the timeline, and just keep records of it for later if necessary. Not intending to do anything with it just yet.  
    • The Financial Ombudsman Service [FOS] has finally come back to me with its thoughts on a long-standing complaint about mis-sold PPI.   The policy was sold to me in April 1997, which, as I appreciate, is before policies became regulated by the FCA on January 14, 2005.   The policy was sold to me by Cofidis which at the time of the sale was not covered by any of the schemes which were applicable before the FCA regulated the sale of PPI policies so the FOS has asserted that my complaint cannot be pursued there.   However, I was already aware of this and my complaint to the FOS was not against Cofidis but the company that provided the cover for the PPI policy, Chubb European Group SE / ACE Insurance S.A. [‘Chubb’] which, at the time of the sale, was covered by one of the schemes that existed before 14.01.05.   The FOS acknowledges this but has said: “There does not appear to have been any direct connection between Cofidis and Chubb at the time of the sale. So the only way Chubb would be responsible is if we can establish that Cofidis was acting as an agent of Chubb when selling the PPI.”   It is the above with which I struggle to agree, but would appreciate the thoughts of those with more expertise than me in these matters.   Firstly, it seems to me there was a direct connection between Cofidis and Chubb. I have supplied the FOS with a copy of the original terms & conditions of the policy [attached here], which is titled ‘Cofidis Limited Protection Plan’ and refers throughout to Chubb. Moreover, it also states that should you wish to cancel the cover at any time you must do so not by writing directly to Chubb but to Cofidis.   This being the case, it seems clear to me that, contrary to the FOS’s assertion, there was ‘a direct connection between Cofidis and Chubb at the time of the sale’ and, what is more, it is entirely conceivable that there was an agency relationship between the two.   The FOS goes on to make the point that it contacted Chubb which advised that it ‘did not have an agency relationship with Cofidis’. Of course, they would say that wouldn’t they! More to the point, when I complained to Chubb, contrary to what they subsequently told the FOS, they said: “Unfortunately, due to the passage of time we no longer hold any information to confirm the relationship between Cofidis Insurance and Chubb when the policy was sold.’   In these circumstances, it is my belief that as a member of the Association of British Insurers, Chubb had an obligation to act in accordance with ABI guidelines and take measures to ensure that any third party, such as Cofidis, selling PPI policies on its behalf did so in accordance with the industry codes of good practice.   Any thoughts gratefully received.   Thanks in anticipation Fred Funk   Cofidis Limited Protection Plan-1-merged_compressed (1).pdf
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Mediator point - Hermes lost my parcel and it is offering just a partial refund of the total amount requested. What's next?. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/434633-mediator-point-hermes-lost-my-parcel-and-it-is-offering-just-a-partial-refund-of-the-total-amount-requested-whats-next/&do=findComment&comment=5109422
      • 13 replies
    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 33 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4262 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

Does anyone have a copy of the Natwest business account terms and conditions in effect for 1991. I have a hearing looming and am in desperate need of them.

Please Click The Scales if I have been of help to you.

 

 

Kensington Mortgages withdrawn. no costs

NatWest Settled in full

Abbey Court Settled in Full

Capital 1 settled in full

Halifax settled in full :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...

hi just noticed your 1991 nat west business question......i started my very small business then and got little help and have wondered about the way they only gave me a very small initail overdraft under £500 .....and they basically then gave me no free banking because of the overdraft and also of course ran into charges almost immediatly .....i think my overdraft now is made up of all the charges etc..............i need to investigate it as it has come to a head recently with them leaving me on the most unsuitable business tariff for me......suitable for them though.......mal- administration ...was what the ombudsman said for nearly 4 years..but i feel they have never helped me from 1991 and the start all the way.... thanks........john....

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry our there not good at this stuff.....dont even know how to navigate the site.......anyway if someone can tell me this.....if you are a very small business ie one man band jobby.......and your bank has been found guilty by the ombudsman of mal- administration for a 4 year period.........which was keeping me on the wrong charging tariff......can you use this as a reason to ask for charges back to 1991 or at least 1995 because they were not doing what they said they would and help you ........as i mentioned in the earlier question my now loan which used to be a overdraft until they defaulted it which is when i found these errors out.... i feel the loan i have could well contain alot of charges/interest built up by charges like i read on the site.........i read some chap was using a certain regulation of errors and bad practice to go back further than six years......sorry i can not use the site well so if you anyone can advise ..i thought as the ombudsman used the mal- administration verdict on them this could give me somekind of lever to say right i am not happy about all the charges and treatment from day one..........also i did not get back the overdraft set up costs during there error 4 x £200 set up when their error meant i was not getting that full amount......proberly £500 less than the amount i should have been getting because of the error and by the time of the last oerdraft set up cost i would have been getting at least £2000 less if you add the other penalty charges to the error etc....... any help will be nice.......thanks again.........

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...