Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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
      • 160 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
  • Recommended Topics

River Island Store Card / GE Money - PPI


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5373 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 again. Well having done a lot of reading around my Beneficial Finance Issue I have been looking at all the statements in my 'little box of statements', and I have also come accross my River Island Store card statements and found that that has PPI on it as well, I didnt even know about that, so am certain some cretin in River Island just added that on when i took the card in store back in 2005! :mad:

 

Would I be best served sending a letter to River Island or GE Money, since it is GE Money that I pay my monthly charges to? Or should I perhaps write seperately to both? I see GE money have been fined considerably so would assume this claim will end up with them? :?

 

Once again, many thanks for your help

 

Saferidges

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again. Well having done a lot of reading around my Beneficial Finance Issue I have been looking at all the statements in my 'little box of statements', and I have also come accross my River Island Store card statements and found that that has PPI on it as well, I didnt even know about that, so am certain some cretin in River Island just added that on when i took the card in store back in 2005! :mad:

 

Would I be best served sending a letter to River Island or GE Money, since it is GE Money that I pay my monthly charges to? Or should I perhaps write seperately to both? I see GE money have been fined considerably so would assume this claim will end up with them? :?

 

Once again, many thanks for your help

 

Saferidges

 

If your Consumer Credit Agreement is headed with GE Money then claim against GE Money. They are involved with a lot of store cards.

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...

Update:

 

Santander have replied to me (my GE query must have been forwarded to them) and have basically rejected my claim outright.

 

The issues they bring are as follows;

 

Insurance was added on 26th October 2000 and therefore the FSA's decision is not relevant (fining the group for mis selling)

 

They have advised and shown me my original documentation where i have signed for payment protection. They therefore claim that this was my decision. They also advise that i had 30 days after taking out the protection to cancel the protection - as I did not they see that i wasnt unhappy.

 

I feel that they have missed the point entirely here. I was mis-sold PPI as i did not understand it was optional. It is only recently that I have discovered what has happened and cancelled the protection in addition to making this complaint.

 

The credit agreement they have sent me shows my signature, it also clearly shows a 'star' scribbled on next to the signature box which is surely a prompt for me to sign.

 

Can anyone advise what response I should give to this letter? Its angered me as it completely apportions blame to me in all matters. Missing the point that I was mis-sold this as an 18 year old who did not know better or to challenge what was being sold to me. If more information is needed please let me know.

 

Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

 

Santander have replied to me (my GE query must have been forwarded to them) and have basically rejected my claim outright.

 

The issues they bring are as follows;

 

Insurance was added on 26th October 2000 and therefore the FSA's decision is not relevant (fining the group for mis selling)

 

They have advised and shown me my original documentation where i have signed for payment protection. They therefore claim that this was my decision. They also advise that i had 30 days after taking out the protection to cancel the protection - as I did not they see that i wasnt unhappy.

 

I feel that they have missed the point entirely here. I was mis-sold PPI as i did not understand it was optional. It is only recently that I have discovered what has happened and cancelled the protection in addition to making this complaint.

 

The credit agreement they have sent me shows my signature, it also clearly shows a 'star' scribbled on next to the signature box which is surely a prompt for me to sign.

 

Can anyone advise what response I should give to this letter? Its angered me as it completely apportions blame to me in all matters. Missing the point that I was mis-sold this as an 18 year old who did not know better or to challenge what was being sold to me. If more information is needed please let me know.

 

Thanks in advance

 

Sorry to hear that santander are being a bunch of (nasty words abound here but I will desist) newbie jobsworths, that keeps it polite for the moment.

 

Next step IMO is a complaint to the FOS, FSA, ICO, OFT.

 

here are all of the details to start making waves.

 

This is a copy of what I sent out you may wish to use some parts to prepare your own response to the arrogance of santander.

 

Mr xxxxxxx

See distribution.

 

xxxxxxxx 2008

 

Dear Sir,

 

Submission of a Very Serious Formal Complaint against the Royal Bank of Scotland

 

I wish to lodge a very serious formal complaint against the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) for their failure to fully comply with a Data Subject Access Request (S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)) under the provisions of Section 7 Sub section (1) ( c ) (i) and (ii) of the Data Protection Act 1998 which is a statute within the Law of the British Isles.

 

On the 7 January 2008 I submitted a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to the Royal Bank of Scotland asking for information on five loan accounts which I have held, two with Direct Line Financial Services (DLFS) and three with RBS. Four of these loans were refinanced to subsequent loans up to the current loan which is still active.

 

To date, I have received statements on the three RBS loan accounts, a statement on my current account and since submitting a request for Consumer Credit Agreements under the provision of Section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I have now received the documentation on the existing loan.

 

Despite several further requests for the information as required by my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), none has been forthcoming.

 

Letters have been sent on:

24 January 2008

16 February 2008

12 March 2008

28 March 2008

2 April 2008

12 April 2008

12 April 2008 Request for CCA under provision of Consumer Credit Act 1974

19 April 2008

 

I have still not received Consumer Credit Agreements with associated paperwork on four of the loans. Because of the inordinate delays, the information requested on the first loan which was refinanced in March 2002 would be of no use as any claim against that loan would now be statute barred within the Scottish Courts.

I have not received data in the name of recordings of telephone conversations or transcripts of those conversations between the RBS and myself.

I have not received copies of emails or letters which I know exist.

I have also not received any properly certified documentation by Data Controllers within the RBS stating the information that I have requested has been disposed of, destroyed or erased.

 

The Royal Bank of Scotland is a member of the British Bankers Association (BBA), is licensed by the Financial Services Authority and should I believe, operate within the Law of the Land and therefore respond within the statutory timescales within Legal Acts at Law, namely the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

I have, when asked, provided information to the RBS, but it seems to me now, that they will try and delay supplying the data requested by using whatever delaying tactics they see fit. On one occasion referring me back to DLFS for the information I had requested. The fact that the DLFS had been legally transferred back to the RBS on 1 March 2006 (the transfer included all DLFS loans) was obviously overlooked by the Data Protection staff within the RBS.

This is indeed an extremely sorry state of affairs and it beggars belief that RBS staff would not be aware this Legal transfer had taken place.

 

My understanding is that the RBS had 40 days to fully supply all the information requested in my Subject Access Request, this has most certainly not happened.

 

I would therefore like to request that each addressee takes the appropriate measures to instruct or at least direct the RBS to supply this information to me as a matter of urgency.

 

I have a complaint lodged with the Information Commissioners Office Case Reference xxxxxx

I would now urge the Commissioner to consider an Enforcement notice against the RBS under Section 40 of the Data Protection Act.

I would also request that the Financial Services Authority, the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Office of Fair Trading and the British Bankers Association add this extremely serious complaint to their files on the Royal Bank of Scotland.

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

A xxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

Distribution:

 

The Financial Services Authority, 25 The North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5HS.

 

The Financial Ombudsman Service, South Quay Plaza, 183 Marsh Wall, London,

E14 9SR.

 

The Commissioner, Information Commissioners Office, Wyckuffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

 

The Information Commissioners Office, Casework and Advice Division, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

 

The Office of Fair Trading, OFT Enquiries, Fleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury Square, London, EC4Y 8JX.

 

Chief Executive, British Bankers Association, Pinners Hall, 105-108 Old Broad Street, London, EC2N 1EX.

 

aa

 

 

Just edit to suit your own complaint and I hope it is of use :)

 

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...