Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Landmark PPI mis-selling ruling


Belaflat
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5327 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

Judge quashes woman's £8,000 credit card debt in 'landmark ruling' on mis-selling of payment protection insurance

 

 

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 5:55 PM on 30th September 2009

A woman has won a landmark legal victory after a judge wrote off her £8,000 credit card debt because she had wrongly been sold payment protection insurance (PPI).

 

A county court judge ruled that Lynne Thorius, 49, from South Shields, was charged thousands of pounds by MBNA for an insurance policy she had never asked for.

 

The ruling could open the floodgates for millions of pounds worth of similar claims against banks and building societies.

It is estimated that around 40 million PPI policies have been sold in Britain in the last six years alone, making this the second biggest selling insurance product on the market.

 

article-1217173-06A59124000005DC-566_468x286.jpg Landmark ruling: Lynne Thorius's £8,000 credit card debt was quashed after MBNA charged thousands for an insurance policy she never asked for

 

Carl Wright, of claims management company Cartel Client Review, who successfully defended Lynne, said today that the ruling is a legal first.

'This is the first time that a judge has ruled on this point and will have a massive impact,' he said.

 

'Consumers now have the authority of the court to bring a claim in such a way that banks and credit card companies will be unable to defend it.

'MBNA acted in a disgusting manner. They harassed this woman at all hours of the day and night to force her to pay for something she never even asked for.

 

'Now Lynne has won, the floodgates could open for millions of other people. This is a massive victory.

 

'It will change the way banks lend money and issue credit cards. We went to court because we knew we had a strong case.

'But MBNA thought their case was watertight. When we got to court our legal argument absolutely white-washed them, and their case against Lynne was thrown out.'

 

'This is a landmark decision for all Cartel clients and a demonstration of the strengths of legal argument used by Cartel.'

 

The mother-of-three applied for the card - which was branded Sunderland ASC but financed by MBNA - in July 2002.

 

She ticked the box which said 'no thank you' to payment protection insurance on the application form, but despite this, the policy was initiated with a £20-a-month charge.

 

The card had a limit of £1,500 and Mrs Thorius, a cleaning supervisor, used it 'here and there' to pay bills and buy gifts.

 

But the credit limit was gradually extended and before she knew it, Lynne was nearly £7,000 in debt.

 

She said: 'I didn't particularly want a credit card and I certainly didn't want PPI. That alone was costing me a fair few pounds a month.

 

'When I noticed it on the statement, I rang them and told them I didn't want it. They said I wouldn't have got the card if I didn't tick the 'yes' box.

 

'When I tried to explain that I hadn't, they just wouldn't listen.'

 

Mrs Thorius, whose PPI charge was gradually increased to £30, even tried to make a claim on the policy when her work hours were cut, but MBNA turned her down.

With her debt soaring and with seemingly no way out, Mrs Thorius contacted the claims management company in December 2008, while MBNA launched a separate action against her, suing for arrears totalling £8,686.90.

 

The bank even threatened a charging order to repossess her house, even though her debt was unsecured.

In a nine-hour hearing at Newcastle-upon-Tyne County Court, Deputy District Judge Jacqueline Smart ruled that the PPI policy had been unfairly imposed.

 

She also threw out MBNA's case against Mrs Thorius because they earned commission on the PPI they 'sold' her.

 

It is the first time a judge has ruled such an arrangement to be in breech of the Unfair Relationships and Unfair Consumer Credit Act Section 78, according to Cartel.

 

Mr Wright said: 'They obviously didn't realise how strong our legal argument was, otherwise they wouldn't have gone to court.

'She clearly ticked the 'no thank-you' box, but MBNA applied PPI on her account anyway.

 

'It was an incredible victory for us, and one we are immensely proud of.'

 

Mrs Thorius added: 'It was a horrible time for my family and I'm so glad it's all over.

'MBNA treated me appallingly from start to finish. I ticked no on the PPI option but they applied it to my account anyway.

 

'When I had my hours cut at work from full-time to part-time and started to struggle to pay the bill, MBNA started calling me three or four times a day, even as late as 9.30pm or 10pm.

 

'MBNA were rude on the phone and one person told me to get another job, while someone else said they would repossess my house.'

 

After news of the ruling broke, the FSA announced a package of tough measures to protect consumers in the PPI market.

 

Jon Pain, FSA managing director of retail markets said: 'Consumers should not be pressured or deceived into buying PPI and they are entitled to have a policy properly explained to them.

 

'It is unacceptable that despite previous warnings about pool sales practices, backed by 22 enforcement cases and significant fines, the PPI sector still needs the FSA to intervene on this.'

 

A spokesman for MBNA said: 'Cases in the County Court are not precedent-setting. Any such cases are decided on their individual merits and no two cases are the same

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217173/Judge-quashes-womans-8-000-credit-card-debt-landmark-ruling-mis-selling-payment-protection-insurance.html#ixzz0ScuKuCPh

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...