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

First Plus Fob Off


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5609 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 All

 

we wrote to First Plus on 12th November setting out claim for missold ppi

for a loan that they told us we had to have ppi to get it

 

recieved a fob off letter telling us they would reply by 22nd December, haven't been able to action this as i am currently ill and just starting to recover

 

Is there a letter to put them under some pressure, as i am sure the reply will then drag things out until 2009 ?

 

regards

:p
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there

 

recieved a response from 1st plus today telling me they dont believe that they mis-sold the ppi and they go on to state the following:-

 

"I have not been able to listen to the loan application telephone calls that took place on 5th May 2001 or 6th May 2001 where the ppi would have been discussed." does this mean they cannot disprove our statement that we were told that the ppi was needed to get the loan?

 

they also go on to state " However at the time that that you would have been put in contact withour account manager, your loan application would ahve been already agreed in principle, regardless of wether you chose to take the insurance being offered.

 

You signed our loan agreement on 17th May 2001. I have enclosed a copy for your information and must draw your attention to the section that confirms the figures for the loan, including what is stated in the 'Optional Payment Protection Premium'

 

Basically they have included the ppi premium in the loan to be repaid over 84 payments but then tell us the PPI was only valid for 5 years

 

do we have a claim for mis-selling at all?

:p
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello blackmanfamily,

 

I will pick up your points in Blue text and give my views in red text

 

Hi there

 

recieved a response from 1st plus today telling methey dont believe (this is a good start as they dont believe that they mis-sold) that they mis-sold the ppi and they go on to state the following:- (so they are not 100% sure they only believe they did not mis-sell)

 

"I have not been able to listen to the loan application telephone calls that took place on 5th May 2001 or 6th May 2001 where the ppi would have been discussed." (You should of course request copies of these telephone conversations or at least transcripts of them under the terms of your Subject Access Request (SAR) I assume you have sent a SAR? does this mean they cannot disprove our statement that we were told that the ppi was needed to get the loan? (You will have to wait for the result of the investigation.

 

they also go on to state " However at the time that that you would have been put in contact withour account manager, your loan application would have been already agreed in principle, regardless of wether you chose to take the insurance being offered. (put them to provide a more comprehensive reply to this as they are just trying to fob you off here and pull the wool over your eyes.

 

You signed our loan agreement on 17th May 2001. I have enclosed a copy for your information and must draw your attention to the section that confirms the figures for the loan, including what is stated in the 'Optional Payment Protection Premium' It may have been optional but did they follow all the relevant procedures on whether it was suitable for you (did they ask all the necessary questions as to whether the policy fitted or not? or whether all the prescribed terms were included

 

Basically they have included the ppi premium in the loan to be repaid over 84 payments but then tell us the PPI was only valid for 5 years

 

IMO the ppi has been mis-sold but you will need to get confirmation and further advice. I would suggest a call to the Financial Ombudsman Service before committing but the FOS is a good and no expense way to go before committing to Court Action.

do we have a claim for mis-selling at all?

 

IMHO and I am as you can see not legal expert just a volunteer helper I would suggest YES you would have a valid claim but others may differ in their opinion so please seek further advice.

 

Good luck anyway if I can help out I surely will;)

 

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...