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

Direct Line/RBS PPI - Demands and Needs


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5320 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

I took out a loan through Direct Line (RBS) at the end of 2006. I still have all the original paperwork.

 

I applied online and did not tick the PPI box. Couple of days later someone from Direct Line phoned me and it was at this stage that PPI was sold to me. I then received the paperwork, signed it and sent it back.

 

I would like to claim back the PPI as it is obviously useless to me. I am about to send a SAR letter - do I send it to Direct Line or RBS? And what do I put on the Postal Order?

 

It seems like I have a multple agreement with the PPI added onto the loan. The payments are not set out separately so I have no idea what the monthly PPI amount is.

 

Amongst the paperwork they sent to me in 2006 was this:

------

STATEMENT OF DEMANDS AND NEEDS

We have not provided you with a personal recommendation as to whether our Loan Payment Protection policy is suitable for your specific needs. Please read your policy documents carefully to ensure you understand the eligibility criteria and the cover provided to you.

------

Does anyone know, that by sending this, they have got out of their obligation to make sure the policy was suitable for me when they sold it?

 

Not seen anything like this on any other thread, so wondering what my reply would be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't worry too much about that, just a way of trying to shift the blame ;)

 

The loan agreement should show your total amount of credit, it should also show the total amount of PPI including interest. I would send a full SAR to RBS, as long as it has the account number on it you should get your info.

 

:)

9-1-07 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent:o !! Lloyds and Halifax!

20-1-07 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent Capital One

20-1-07 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent Halifax Card Services

20-1-07 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent Marbles

20-1-07 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent Halifax (Birchave0's sis)

8-3-07 PPI refund Lloyds TSB Loan £1200 + £2900 off loan balance

22-5-07 Halifax *Won* £1025

23-9-07 Goldfish 8k balance written off, £2300 PPI + charges returned, no agreement

Link to post
Share on other sites

I took out a loan through Direct Line (RBS) at the end of 2006. I still have all the original paperwork.

 

I applied online and did not tick the PPI box. Couple of days later someone from Direct Line phoned me and it was at this stage that PPI was sold to me. I then received the paperwork, signed it and sent it back.

 

I would like to claim back the PPI as it is obviously useless to me. I am about to send a SAR letter - do I send it to Direct Line or RBS? And what do I put on the Postal Order?

 

It seems like I have a multple agreement with the PPI added onto the loan. The payments are not set out separately so I have no idea what the monthly PPI amount is.

 

Amongst the paperwork they sent to me in 2006 was this:

------

STATEMENT OF DEMANDS AND NEEDS

We have not provided you with a personal recommendation as to whether our Loan Payment Protection policy is suitable for your specific needs. Please read your policy documents carefully to ensure you understand the eligibility criteria and the cover provided to you.

------

Does anyone know, that by sending this, they have got out of their obligation to make sure the policy was suitable for me when they sold it?

 

Not seen anything like this on any other thread, so wondering what my reply would be.

 

My demands and needs differed over four loans with Direct Line and three with RBS. You should be aware that Direct Line Financial Services was legally transferred to RBS and the evidence is within my thread.

 

This was the problem I encountered and I believe if you read through my long thread fighting Direct Line and RBS you should find the way to approach your claim.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/payment-protection-insurance-ppi/111159-rbs-ppi-claim-long.html

 

You can use any templates or letters to your advantage, changing the detail to suit your own claim of course.

 

It worked for me claim was a success via the FOS £10k plus.

 

If you need more assistance just post.

 

aa

Edited by alanalana
text added

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

Thanks for your input.

 

Do you think that by putting in the disclaimer with the original docs that they do not provide personal recommendations will go against me?

 

Can they get away with putting these disclaimers in or are they still responsible for making sure the ppi is suitable? Just not sure what my reply would be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input.

 

Do you think that by putting in the disclaimer with the original docs that they do not provide personal recommendations will go against me?

 

Can they get away with putting these disclaimers in or are they still responsible for making sure the ppi is suitable? Just not sure what my reply would be.

 

You claim mis-sold PPI the onus is on them to prove it was not mis-sold. So they should provide the complete demands and needs questionnaire and it should show you initials against every question they asked you at the point of sale of the loan and PPI. It must also show all the relevant questions have been asked on Pre existing medical conditions, employment status, age and much more if the demands and needs questionnaire is incomplete, not initialled by the applicant on each question asked then it should be considered that the loan and ppi attached to this is mis-sold. The banks must ensure the product is fit for your needs it is not for you to prove it was not.

 

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

You claim mis-sold PPI the onus is on them to prove it was not mis-sold. So they should provide the complete demands and needs questionnaire and it should show you initials against every question they asked you at the point of sale of the loan and PPI. It must also show all the relevant questions have been asked on Pre existing medical conditions, employment status, age and much more if the demands and needs questionnaire is incomplete, not initialled by the applicant on each question asked then it should be considered that the loan and ppi attached to this is mis-sold. The banks must ensure the product is fit for your needs it is not for you to prove it was not.

 

aa

 

Hi shizmoo:-)

 

We have Demands and Needs form for PPI attached to a loan and I was wondering whether the existence of such a form does indeed have a bearing on the mis-selling aspect.

 

Ours certainly doesn't have questions with boxes to tick etc etc as alanalana has mentioned. This was also done over the phone (although not with Direct Line/RBS in this case).

 

Our lender has intimated that the existence of a Demands and Needs form shows the PPI wasn't mis-sold (amongst their many other reasons!), but this was a 'non-advised' sale and I'm wondering whether that makes a difference to the way the form is structured or indeed whether a 'non-advised' sale negates the need for such a form?

 

We also have an old settled loan with Direct Line which we have just put in a mis-sold PPI claim for. This is currently being investigated by RBS/DL and I will be interested to see what response they come up with at the end of their 8 weeks - will follow your progress with interest......good luck!

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a Demands and Needs form. Just a sheet of paper, sent to me at the time of the loan, stating that they have not provided a personal recommendation as to whether PPI is suitable for me. In other words, this has been a 'non-advised' sale. Just wondering whether they can use that as a defence. It seems, from what you say Landy, that they will use this to try and get out of paying. So I guess, what I'm thinking is, can they get away with it by stating it was a 'non-advised' sale?

 

Landy, did you send your SAR to RBS or DL? Just wanted to get it right first time to stop them making excuses. Good luck to you too. I will also follow your progress with interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a Demands and Needs form. Just a sheet of paper, sent to me at the time of the loan, stating that they have not provided a personal recommendation as to whether PPI is suitable for me. In other words, this has been a 'non-advised' sale. Just wondering whether they can use that as a defence. It seems, from what you say Landy, that they will use this to try and get out of paying. So I guess, what I'm thinking is, can they get away with it by stating it was a 'non-advised' sale?

 

Landy, did you send your SAR to RBS or DL? Just wanted to get it right first time to stop them making excuses. Good luck to you too. I will also follow your progress with interest.

 

But surely they SHOULD have advised if the product was suitable for you, I thought this was one of the main reasons for shouting miss selling? They can't just offer a product and then not give any advice on it??? :confused:

Can they prove the sale was none advised?

9-1-07 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent:o !! Lloyds and Halifax!

20-1-07 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent Capital One

20-1-07 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent Halifax Card Services

20-1-07 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent Marbles

20-1-07 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent Halifax (Birchave0's sis)

8-3-07 PPI refund Lloyds TSB Loan £1200 + £2900 off loan balance

22-5-07 Halifax *Won* £1025

23-9-07 Goldfish 8k balance written off, £2300 PPI + charges returned, no agreement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi shizmoo:)

 

Like you we still had our original copy of the loan agreement and a record of payments we had made so we didn't actually bother doing a SAR. This is an old loan that was settled early in 2002. We have no paperwork regarding the PPI specifically though, not even a sheet regarding no personal recommendations having been made.

 

We sent our request for repayment to the following address -

 

Royal Bank of Scotland

PPI Customer Concerns Team

Regulatory Risk

5th Floor

1 Hardman Boulevard

Manchester

M3 3AQ

 

Apparently this department has been set up specifically to deal with PPI issues - as the name suggests!

 

I wonder whether all PPI sales, whether advised or non-advised should have a Demands and Needs form filled out? I had assumed they were for advised sales only, but in the case of the other loan I mentioned in my previous post (which is an unregulated loan for over £50,000 with Swift Advances) we do have a Demands and Needs form (albeit in the most basic fashion), but we have been told by them that this sale was unadvised - so now I'm confused:confused:

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

But surely they SHOULD have advised if the product was suitable for you, I thought this was one of the main reasons for shouting miss selling? They can't just offer a product and then not give any advice on it??? :confused:

Can they prove the sale was none advised?

 

I agree that they SHOULD advise. Isn't this what got the whole endowment fiasco into trouble?

 

As to whether they can prove the sale was non-advised I expect they can point to the fact that they sent me this piece of paper which says:

 

STATEMENT OF DEMANDS AND NEEDS

We have not provided you with a personal recommendation as to whether our Loan Payment Protection policy is suitable for your specific needs. Please read your policy documents carefully to ensure you understand the eligibility criteria and the cover provided to you.

HOWEVER, I would think, from the moment they telephoned me, it became an 'advised' sale. As I said in my first post, I applied on-line and DID NOT tick the PPI box. PPI was sold to me on the phone.

 

Landy, I wanted to do a SAR to hopefully get the telephone transcripts. I'm just as confused as you are, but my feeling is that any financial product sold HAS to be advised. One of the reasons for endowment mis-selling was because customers were given 'unsuitable recommendations' which is exactly what DL did with me. They recommended something to me which was unsuitable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had a quick look at the previous posts and whatever Direct Line/RBS state on the demands and needs or in fact the PPI mis-selling, IT IS IMPORTANT that you pursue your claim via the FOS. Do not be put off by letters from the banks. If the bank refuses your claim then submit a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Send copies of all correspondence both in and out and any other paperwork you have. Try to send photocopies or scanned copies as the FOS do lose paperwork. Also keep a spare copy for yourself. I know it can be time consuming doing all of this copying and I have many kilos of paper stacked away. But you must not let them fob you off with misleading information. The FOS is upholding 90% of claims submitted the sad thing is out of three million claims to the banks only 140,000 have been passed up to the FOS, this means 126,000 have had a success. If it was three million then 2,700.000 would have been successful. do not be put off from claiming.

 

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...