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

Mother CCA'd Debenhams - sent her Application form but calling it her agreement!

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5478 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hello folks,


Thought I was list this up for my Mother who has no internet access.


She is still currently paying but agreed that she wants to challenge her accounts as she was charged PPI for many, even though she has been medically retired from work since 1997 and could never claim.


She has also been suffering since 97 with PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) which has been effecting her mental state and we are concerned that she has got herself into this situation without much thought. She was 25 when she witnessed her husband (she was pregnant with me at the time) being murdered and since 97 she has suffered greatly with flashbacks, panic attacks, suicidal feelings etc.


As she is now approaching retirement age we want to try and assist her with getting her finances in order.


Having CCA'd GE Money for her Debenhams account, today they have replied with what clearly looks like her original application. There do seem to be some predescribed terms, but not all. It also does not confirm her identity at the top of the app, nor does it confirm her employment status (she was recieiving DLA at the time, having been medically retired from work 4 years earlier), It also references a second page and a section 11, neither of which were provided.


I dont want her to start to get threatened, so I have advised her to continue to pay (ftm anyway). Can you advise her best way forward? I feel she should push for the agreement being unenforceable in court? Most of her charges are for PPI, which it is clear she was prompted to sign by the store member (they have marked beside it with an x, just as the declaration box at the bottom - a bit strange to do this, my mum recalls that she was never asked if she wanted PPI, just that she had to sign in two places).


In 2004 she had moments of clarity as to the gravity of her situation and started to look at statements. At that stage she wrote to GE asking them to end PPI payments, but this was never followed up and again only towards the end of last year did she again notice PPI still being charged. She wrote again and they acknowledged her letter, cancelling the PPI.


What I find amazing is that other than a Credit score, they made no atempt to verify if she was in a position to make repayments, or if she was in a position to ever benefit from the PPI they sidelined her into, which they obviously would never have sold her had they checked her out - given that she was on benefits! :rolleyes:


'agreement' listed below, your thoughts much appreciated. My wife and I stayed up all last night getting our own letters sent off, so tonight we want to work on this and get something sent away tomorrow.


Thanks one and all.



Link to post
Share on other sites

All very quiet on the forum this last couple of days - hopefully everyone is getting a rest and some peace!


Right, been reading around the forum about how to go down the PPi being mis-sold route. It makes up a substantial amount per month (£1.50 per £100, so in my mother's case, its currently £45 per month) and if it was repaid it would more than clear her outstanding balance.


Looking at the 'agreement' they have provided, it is clear that the form was filled out by the agent and obviously in a hurry as they did not complete various important parts. The one especially I have in mind is the 3 tick boxes at the top, which state:


I am aged over 18

I have been a UK resident for at least the last 12 months

My partner or myself are in permanent paid employment (min 16 hours per week), self-employed or retired, or in reciept of incapacity benefit.


If the agent had asked and ticked these boxes, they would have been made fully aware that my mother had been made medically retired due to her mental health (PTSD as mentioned above) and that she was in reciept of DLA. If they were responsbile lenders, this alone would asertain to them that my mother COULD NEVER claim on any PPi policy, so signing her up for one would be a waste of her money.


As its clear that the debenhams agent has simply filled in the bare minimum on the application (also listed with a different account number at the top, compared to what my mother has now) they also prompted two signatures by marking the two places my mother should sign. Again a responsible lender would have made it clear to my mother that by signing in this box she was accepting PPI and at that point ask pertinant questions, guaging her eligability for the Policy. By my mother signing this, I make the assumption that she was railroaded into the policy, with little or no explanation - other than (and in their own words from the document) providing her with 'complete peace of mind'.


They also increased the PPI charges at some point without asking for a new document to be resigned agreeing to this - charge increased from £1 to £1.50 per £100, so significant enough.


So my thoughts are that I send a letter, basically thanking them for sending what they believe to be a true copy of the agreement, as it is missing certain predescribed terms and is not completed fully, rendering it to be unenforceable.


I want to go on and say that as my mother was medically retired from work at the time (and in reciept of benefits), and had your representative acknowledged that issue when making her application 9and completed the application correctly), they would have been aware that the PPi insurance that my mother was being sold would have been of no value to her (if and when they explained her eligibility, with my mother as the lay, uninformed consumer), as she could never claim upon it.


Or, if their representative did not care to explain the eligibility of the PPi policy (because if they did, they would have come to the 1st conclusion, that she was ineligible for cover), but choose instead to railroad the sale of the policy by pre-marking the signature area and prompting my mother to sign the document (as a pre-requisite for the application), with the effect that they gained a healthy comission as a result - then that could be deemed to be an illegal act and in doing so, they have taken several thousand pounds from my mother over the last 8 years for a policy which is invalid.


Im then going to ask them to refund all PPi payment made directly to my mother by cheque within the next 14 days or settle her account in full, otherwise we will be prepared to take legal action.


Sound to harsh? Read anothe cager had success being mis-sold debenhams ppi and once he made it clear that they sold him a pup he could never claim on, they refunded in full.


Advice and thoughts appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Sorry but dont know about the enforceablity of what you have posted (someone with better knowledge will be along im sure).

However I did make a PPI claim against GE Money (Evans Store Card) and I think Debenhams are GE Money also (even if their not this might help). I was not working when I took out my card (on Carers Allowance only) but they added PPI without explaination and just had me sign it. If you ask the DWP to send you a letter stating that your mother is on benefits and for how long she has received them for (start date), then send a copy to Debenhams with a I want my PPI back letter as well, stating that mis sold because of receipt of benefits. I did that and they refunded fully plus interest 2 weeks later, I only ever send them the one letter. Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres the letter I have typed up, thoughts appreciated!




Dear Ms. McDermott,


Thank you for your recent letter dated 7th April 2009, the contents of which are noted. I appreciate your quick response to my original letter which you received on 6th April 2009.


Having been in contact with your company on several occasions regarding PPI insurance that was applied to my account. I can see from the application form you have provided me with that the representative of Debenhams/ GE Money who completed the application for credit on your behalf, did so with haste, in that they failed to complete the document in full.


Having been retired from work in 1997, due to a medical diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and mental instability, as a result of witnessing my husband’s murder while pregnant with our first child in 1978, I was in receipt of benefits at the time of my application for a Debenhams store card in 2001.


Had your representative completed the application form in full, they would have been liable to complete the first section of the document, entitled ‘before you begin, can you say yes to these statements?’ Having luckily received back my initial application form as a result of my request to you for my Credit Card Agreement, it is clear that none of the 3 tick boxes were selected by your store representative at the time of my application. In fact all of the information was inputted on the form by your representative, asking me only to sign in two places, both marked by a large ‘X’, in order to complete my application.


As responsible lenders, it is expected of you and your agents to explain in full the benefits and eligibility (so the pro’s and the CON’S) of any aspects of any application, particularly those that involve additional costs or insurance policies. These terms are made quite clear by the FOS. As a lay consumer I am not knowledgeable of such financial issues, hence why the FOS produce guidelines requiring providers to explain all aspects ‘before’ selling or issuing such policies.


I feel it is best to explain how I have been mis-sold this policy, putting me in a position whereby I have made substantial payments to GE Money in the last 8 years, amounting to several thousand pounds, with it being extremely clear that I WOULD NEVER be able to issue a claim on the same policy.


If you state in response to me that your agent acted responsibly and that the documents were completed correctly and that the policy was not mis-sold, my response will be that if that is the case, then your agent had they asked about my employment status, would have gained the knowledge of my status as retired and also that I had a pre-existing medical condition, both of which render me ineligible for ever making a PPi claim, so your agent should have informed me that taking such a policy out would be a waste of my money and never allowed the application form to be completed requesting account cover to be included. If however, your agent failed to identify this information at the point of completing the first questions on the application, they would have had a second opportunity to explain the benefits and eligibility of PPi account cover (as you/they are required to do by the F O S who produce the regulations for such sales) before I was pushed into signing section 2, ‘protecting your account’. I say pushed because your agent simply asked me to sign where the document was marked twice by an ‘X’ before informing me that the application form was compete.


I therefore suggest that your agent, in their haste to get the ‘sale’ of another store card application, raced through the application process, omitting to complete various pertinent aspects of the application form, never took on board my retired status or pre-existing medical condition (obviously then deciding not to complete the 1st three tick boxes which would have ascertained my employment status and at the same time, highlighting a serious flaw in GE Monies/Debenhams compliance levels as this should have been picked up by the senior member of staff who signed the application on 28.3.01) and went on to complete the rest of the personal details, choosing to skim over the highlights of your PPi account cover (again which are highlighted at the top of the application, other than to make it clear to me that it offered ‘complete peace of mind’, as stated in the application form) and not taking the time to ask or explain if the policy would be relevant, claimable upon or a complete waste of time to me. Obviously, as has been proved widely, large commissions were paid for selling such PPI account cover policies and the net result was as happened in my instance, the gain to your agent outweighed their responsibility to explain whether or not I was eligible for such a policy, and they choose their gain over my loss.


Ultimately, the final responsibility lies with you as the lender and provider of the policy. As I have been suffering greatly with mental instability I have for many years been unable to cope with or recognise various policies I made applications for and as a result I was severely taken advantage of by many institutions, who have benefited from my years of paying mis-sold and illegal policies which are worth less than the value of the paper they are printed on.


Approaching pensionable age, my family are assisting me in gaining some control back to my financial circumstances, before I am left penniless. As you will I am sure understand, losing ones husband at such a young age (25) and in such a violent way, can have devastating consequences and it is very easy for a vunerable person such as myself to get taken advantage of.


Further to this, I never received any customer copy of this application form, nor any policy documents at any stage in the last 8 years, nor did I receive any notification that the PPI rate was to increase quite substantially over the years (all have only been made clear since receiving your letter dated 7th April 2009.) As a result I never had the information or opportunity to opt out of this agreement.


Therefore I wish to make it clear that since I could never claim on this policy (which I finally managed to cancel in December 2008), and that it was mis-sold to me due to the agent failing to explain or identify that I was ineligible from the very outset of my application, then I am entitled to receive back all PPI payments paid to GE Money/Debenhams for the above account from the date of the application, 27th March 2001, plus 8% compound interest.


Having already contacted you about this issue several months ago, I feel that 14 days is a reasonable amount of time to allow you to make this payment, directly to me by cheque to my address at the top of this letter. I do not wish for this amount to be credited to my account as it came from my bank account, not Debenhams ‘store credit’ and my account is currently up to date.


Should you not fulfil my request within the time frame I have allowed, I am prepared to initiate legal action via the courts in my quest to get back my money which was taken from me with the intention of never providing anything in return, plus contractual levels of interest being 28% APR.


I have already taken legal advice about this claim and would be entitled to legal aid should the need arise.


Please contact me only by letter as I do not wish to correspond with your company by any other means.


Yours faithfully,

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...