Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss.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

PPI claim rejected, help with response


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5371 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,

 

Santander have responded to a mis-sold PPI claim based on a pre-existing medical condition and would like some help in regards how to respond.

 

This is what they said:

 

"In your letter you have advised that you were not asked if you suffered from a pre-existing medical condition that would have made the policy unsuitable. How please understand that having an illness prior to the cover being taken out does not exlcude you from the insurance, this simply may mean that you cannot claim for this condition in future. This information is clearly detailed in you policy."

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd post this on the ppi forum

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved to the PPI Forum :)

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

What they're basically saying is that a pre-existing medical condition will not render the policy useless as you would still be covered in most cases if you were made reduntant (for example, as long as that wasn't in relation to the pre-existing medical condition).

 

You could maybe write back to them, thanking them for their response but add on something along the lines of

 

"I reiterate that I believe I was mis-sold this policy because I was Suffering from a pre-existing medical condition that could affect my insurance and was not made aware of this by the salesperson at the time."

 

If you’ve had medical problems in the past it's not enough to assume that you'll be able to claim a refund, the key point is whether, at the time of application, you were told this was an important part of the policy and were asked to disclose any past health issues. If you weren't asked to disclose any information, then you could have a valid case.

 

Make sure you get all the information from them in the form of a S.A.R

If you proceed with this without the signed contracts etc in hand and it turns out they did ask you, and you signed to acknowledge the fact, then you could be in trouble as far as fraud is concerned (im not saying that's the case, I don't even know if you've had your documents back from them, just be wary if you havn't).

  • Haha 1

01/08/06- Royal Bank of Scotland - S.A.R sent

24/08/06- Royal Bank of Scotland - Statements Received

31/08/06- Royal Bank of Scotland - 1st Request sent

13/09/06- Royal Bank of Scotland - LBA sent

23/09/06- Royal Bank of Scotland - Offer received £1544 (Thanks but no thanks)

02/10/06- Royal Bank of Scotland - *WON* Full settlement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Santander have responded to a mis-sold PPI claim based on a pre-existing medical condition and would like some help in regards how to respond.

 

This is what they said:

 

"In your letter you have advised that you were not asked if you suffered from a pre-existing medical condition that would have made the policy unsuitable. How please understand that having an illness prior to the cover being taken out does not exlcude you from the insurance, this simply may mean that you cannot claim for this condition in future. This information is clearly detailed in you policy."

 

anyone with policy details please post.

 

I do not believe what I am seeing here.

 

So you can have a pre existing medical condition which would not exclude you from having this insurance:eek: but Simply may mean that you cannot claim for this condition in the future.

 

So you can have the insurance and you can have a pre existing medical condition which would not exclude you from having PPI insurance BUT but Simply may mean that you cannot claim for this condition in the future.

 

Define future is this nanoseconds after you agree to the policy or weeks, months etc

 

what a load of bullsh** IMO

 

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

wriggle wriggle..........

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This PPI claim are on accounts that have been paid off and closed for over a year if this makes a difference.

 

I tracked down the insurers of the PPI and asked them if I could have information about pre-exisitng medical conditions. There stance was that I was able to have a medical condition but still claim for example if I broke my leg or was made redundant. My only problem is that this limited to what I could claim on as my condition is a form of arthritis.

 

I asked if they could specify what is claimable with a pre-existing medical condition and they said to ask the creditor for the policy documents.

 

If anyone has policy documents from GE Money could they look to see if it gives exclusions about what type of conditions are able to be claimed on. If it doesn't then i'm in a bit of a grey area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This PPI claim are on accounts that have been paid off and closed for over a year if this makes a difference. ( you should IMO proceed to make a claim and if they try and fob you off complain to the FOS - ensuring you send them copies of all the letters sent an received)

 

I tracked down the insurers of the PPI and asked them if I could have information about pre-exisitng medical conditions. There stance was that I was able to have a medical condition but still claim for example if I broke my leg or was made redundant. ( and non of this is pre existing) My only problem is that this limited to what I could claim on as my condition is a form of arthritis. (which as a non medical trained person could be classed as a pre existing medical condition)

 

I asked if they could specify what is claimable with a pre-existing medical condition and they said to ask the creditor for the policy documents. ( if the creditor has not provided the documents you should send a Subject Access Request with the fee of £10 and specifically ask for copies of the Consumer Credit Agreement with the terms and conditions applicable to that agreement at the time it was entered into)

If anyone has policy documents from GE Money could they look to see if it gives exclusions about what type of conditions are able to be claimed on. If it doesn't then i'm in a bit of a grey area.

 

If you have not already sent a SAR then time to use one of these templates.

 

Data Protection Act 1998 - Subject Access Request

 

and another one here...

 

Full SAR for ppi

 

You should request the following documents:

 

A true copy of your Consumer Credit Agreement with the Terms and Conditions that were applicable at the time you took the loan/cards.

 

Copies of all statements applicable to the loan/cards.

 

Copies of all correspondence that apply to you as a data subject ie letters, emails, faxes etc.

 

Copies of all recorded telephone calls or transcripts of the recordings.

 

A copy of the needs and wants/ customer duty of care questionnaire... here is an example.

 

http://wwwa.mbna.co.uk/insurance/files/CP0608_INSU_MB_LP_S.pdf

 

Copies of any notes made by Link staff in their dealings with you.

 

Make them do the work do not accept a simple fob off letter if you had pre existing medical conditions at the point of sale then the PPI was mis-sold to you and you should claim your money back.

 

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

Is having a laugh at post 6 lol :D nicely put Alan

 

PF

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...