Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • receiving a default NOTICE (forget simple default cal markers) does not mean it will get sold on... OC's very very rarely do court themselves.  if it does you would receive a Notice of Assignment from the debt buyer/DCA.  as for reduced payment if it remains with the OC and they issue a DN, no harm in trying but lets get all your ducks inline first. dx  
    • okay thanks do you know how long it will take for it to get to the DCA or could the OC try and issue a CCJ? even though it's unlikely also for example would the OC agree to a reduction and a small payment over a super lengthy period of time if agreed? Rather than go through chasing apologies again for all the questions, just trying to understand all the possible scenarios.  
    • Currently - "the maximum daily price at 100p / kWh for electricity and 30p / kWh for gas – keep in mind that's a lot higher than the Ofgem Energy Price Cap, so if you can't afford prices to increase further, you're probably better off sticking with a protected tariff such as Flexible Octopus." Octopus Tracker is a product of our labs, available now to customers through our beta programme. Octopus Tracker is a beta product. Some things may not work the first time, and installations and processes may take longer than we'd like. Third party tech like In-home Displays won't always work, and on occasion data issues with smart meters can take significant time to fix or prevent things from working at all.   Copied straight from octopus   Feel free to shove it somewhere else    
    • depends what the fees are, typically nothing can be added once judgement is passed bar litigation costs. on document retention time limits etc at least 6yrs previous must be held though many hold complete info. as for acronyms and abbreviations ideally yes they should     
    • Still have to submit a statement either system....if they fail they can only give verbal because they failed to file and serve.
  • 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 reclaim from Central Trust/Debt buster loans


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5366 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

Good afternoon to all

 

I need some advice on how I should approach the next step, I will not mention any figures in respect of the loan but the PPI is more than £15,000.

Debt Buster loans arranged a loan which included a PPI policy for me back in 2006 for which was underwritten by Central Trust on behalf of FirstPlus, I lodged my complaint to FP who forwarded this to Central Trust, on the grounds for mis-selling were that I never needed the policy and was never given the option to buy a cheaper policy elsewhere, the reply came back saying they have investigated my complaint and cannot see any mis-selling by their sales person and therefore rejected after they reviewed the tapes and paperwork.

 

I have now listened to the telephone conversations and clearly on the first conversation a loan was agreed with no PPI as I answered the normal questions that I have life cover, redundancy and sickness cover and therefore no thanks to the expensive PPI, I then received another call from them saying because I have a small secured loan on my property I must consolidate both the secured and new loan for it to be accepted, throughout the 2nd telephone conversation the sales rep from Debt Buster loans kept saying that his insurance was the best deal available as you get the full money back after 5 years (must of said it at least 10 times)even though I made it clear I had the cover from the previous telephone conversation, he also said if I redeem the loan early I would get back all unused insurance (not true) as I paid the loan off after a year and got back a tiny fraction, also from conversation he never repeated the PPI questions that were covered in the first call where I had the cover in place already, because a bigger loan was now going to be secured on my property I believed this was compulsary that PPI had to be taken because he kept pushing it in a way that I said a reluctant OK. at no time was it mentioned I could look around for cheaper insurance.

 

Any help on what to do next would be appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

Gooner 15

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good afternoon to all

 

I need some advice on how I should approach the next step, I will not mention any figures in respect of the loan but the PPI is more than £15,000.

Debt Buster loans arranged a loan which included a PPI policy for me back in 2006 for which was underwritten by Central Trust on behalf of FirstPlus, I lodged my complaint to FP who forwarded this to Central Trust, on the grounds for mis-selling were that I never needed the policy and was never given the option to buy a cheaper policy elsewhere, the reply came back saying they have investigated my complaint and cannot see any mis-selling by their sales person and therefore rejected after they reviewed the tapes and paperwork.

 

I have now listened to the telephone conversations and clearly on the first conversation a loan was agreed with no PPI as I answered the normal questions that I have life cover, redundancy and sickness cover and therefore no thanks to the expensive PPI, I then received another call from them saying because I have a small secured loan on my property I must consolidate both the secured and new loan for it to be accepted, throughout the 2nd telephone conversation the sales rep from Debt Buster loans kept saying that his insurance was the best deal available as you get the full money back after 5 years (must of said it at least 10 times)even though I made it clear I had the cover from the previous telephone conversation, he also said if I redeem the loan early I would get back all unused insurance (not true) as I paid the loan off after a year and got back a tiny fraction, also from conversation he never repeated the PPI questions that were covered in the first call where I had the cover in place already, because a bigger loan was now going to be secured on my property I believed this was compulsary that PPI had to be taken because he kept pushing it in a way that I said a reluctant OK. at no time was it mentioned I could look around for cheaper insurance.

 

Any help on what to do next would be appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

Gooner 15

 

Another mis-selling of PPI. Please read the stickies at the top of the forum. These give all the mis-selling ploys and how you can reclaim. It will be a long haul no quick fix for this and the bank will dig in and keep you waiting as is the current ploy from all banks facing reclaiming PPI refunds.

 

All new posters this is **important**

 

PPI - Some Notes for Claimants..

 

Mis-sold PPI? Want your money back? use these links to help

 

Full SAR for ppi

 

Data Protection Act 1998 - Subject Access Request

 

You can be specific with what data you request although the Subject Access Request is really asking for everything. The Statutory fee is £10.00 Postal Order is fine but keep the details of the number for future reference. The post office will be able to confirm when it was encashed (just call 01246 542091 they will even send written confirmation if you request it) Send all correspondence by at least recorded to be signed for so you can track delivery through Royal Mail

 

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/card/mortgage.

 

Copies of all statements applicable to the loan/card/mortgage.

 

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.

 

Copies of any notes made by bank/loan company staff in their dealings with you as a data subject.

 

Do not be fobbed off by them citing issues such as relevant filing systems.

 

If they have any records/data on you as a data subject and it is held under your name, address, post code, account number/s or any other system where the data is identifiable to you then it is a relevant filing system. Even if it is a specific serial number on microfiche records and the serial number is applicable to you.

 

Homework first

 

then plan your way forward

 

then claim your money back

 

Long haul but worth the effort IMO

 

FOS upholding 90% of complaints should make you smile:D

 

PPI has been a massive ripoff and has now been seen for what it is by the Competition Commissioners Office

 

Final result of the Competition Commission inquiry

http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/2009/542ppi.htm

 

and this is the latest response from the financial institutions..

 

ANOTHER GREAT LINK RE THE COMPETITION COMMISSIONER AND THE RESPONSES BY THE BANKS - Link Courtesy Pompeyfaith

 

Competition Commission - Inquiry - Payment Protection Insurance (PPI)

 

Hope you find this of use. Take up the fight and keep on with the fight.

 

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...