Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • and something for aurora watchers to err watch out for   4 solar flares simultaneously erupt from the sun in rare 'super' explosion — and Earth could be hit by the fallout | Live Science WWW.LIVESCIENCE.COM In the early hours of Tuesday (April 23), quadruple solar flares near-simultaneously exploded from across the sun's surface, and there's...  
    • No......CPR 31.14 does not technically apply to Small Claims Track anyway Reply to defence and defence to counterclaim 15.8  If a claimant files a reply to the defence— (a)the claimant must— (i)file the reply with a directions questionnaire; and (ii)serve the reply on the other parties at the same time as it is filed; and (b)the reply should form one document with any defence to counterclaim, with the defence to counterclaim following the reply, unless the dates on which they are due to be filed differ from one another.
    • Hi. I have been away on holiday I got back today to a letter "Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track" It says I have to complete Small Claims Directions Questionnaire (Form N180) by 22nd April which I haven't done as I was away Suggestions, or is it too late? Thanks
    • So to clear up, you think you've paid this £1200 as part of the £4000, leaving a net overpayment of £2800 (which you don't want back?) Can you provide proof of payment (bank statements for the standing order) showing that you've paid this £4k over? Do you still have to pay for the child currently? In regards to your second query re: PiP it's only a press release right now, nothing has been confirmed. Just remember it's election year so there's no guarantee that the current or any future governments will follow through with it.  
  • 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

PPI Mortgage Protection - chance in hell


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5577 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

Any opinions on my chances, letter mailed out last week. Thanks. MIS-SOLD AND MIS-REPRESENTED MORTGAGE PAYMENT PROTECTION INSURANCE (PPI)

REQUEST FOR REPAYMENT OF PREMIUMS AND REFUSED BENEFIT REFERENCE NUMBER

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

I believe I have been mis-sold a PPI policy and would like to request a full refund of my premiums and refused 'XXXXXX' benefit , plus interest paid.

 

Until the recent publicity around the mis-selling of PPI I was unaware of my rights, which is why I am now contacting you. I took out the PPI advised by your sales representatives via telephone and the agreement was signed and returned although it is missing from your recent response to my Subject Access Request (Subject Access Request), so I must assume it no longer exists. I asked for all the information on these accounts and no telephone transcripts were provided, so these must also no longer be held by yourselves.

 

The Terms & Conditions of the small print were not fully explained to me.

Specifically I had no idea that I could be unemployed through no fault of my own but you could use a clause in the small print to evade payment.

 

A description of mis-selling from the Financial Ombudsman consumer fact sheet on PPI:

...' the policy was not properly described to

them – and they bought it not

understanding it wasn’t suitable or how

it worked.'

 

I believe that a reasonable level of care and skill was not offered to me during the sales process, and that therefore you failed to meet your obligations under the terms of section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

'In a contract for the supply of a service where the supplier is acting in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the supplier will carry out the service with reasonable care and skill.'

 

I believe you have broken several of the Principles of Business.

Which are legally binding on you, under 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 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 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 judgement.

I was suspended, then dismissed due to falling foul of office politics.

I lodged a case with the local Industrial Tribunal and my lawyers were approached with an out of court settlement. The lawyers advised me to accept the offer and I did.

 

I claimed the 'XXXXXX' benefit of your PPI. In your letter of XXXXXX you advised me that: 'According to the information supplied it would appear that your employment was terminated due to misconduct which is specifically excluded under the policy terms and conditions.'

 

I appealed given that part of my settlement was a glowing reference and the charge of gross misconduct was removed by my former employer.

 

You replied in your letter of XXXXXXX that:

'Further to your letter, I must advise you that to enable your claim, to proceed further I will require evidence form (your spelling) an Industrial Tribunal to confirm that your dismissal has been won in your favour and that they ruled out gross misconduct. Unfortunately, I will be unable to accept an out of court settlement'.

 

As I had already accepted an out of court settlement, I did not have the option to restate my case to an Industrial Tribunal.

 

If the small print clause you used to deny my claim had been made known to me when speaking to your telephone advisor while discussing the features of your 'XXXXXX' PPI I would obviously have proceeded with the Industrial Tribunal.

 

Not withstanding the above it is a tautology that you can accept the information I provided to you that I was dismissed due to misconduct but then refuse to accept an out of court settlement in the form of a fax from my former employers to my lawyers, as proof that I was not dismissed for misconduct.

 

In fact were you to write to XXXXXX human resources (the employer) they would give you a good reference for me still and would deny if asked that I had been dismissed due to misconduct.

 

'XXXXXX' cover started from XXXXX.

So I am requesting repayment of premiums from XXXXXX until xxxxxx with contractual interest. Schedule enclosed. Also I request xxxxxx the unpaid monthly mortgage benefit while I was unemployed from xxxxxx to xxxxxx with contractual interest. Schedule enclosed. If I do not receive a favourable response from you within 14 days I will pursue this claim either through the Civil Court or the Financial Ombudsman Service. Yours faithfully

Edited by Ragtaggeorge
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...