Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

please can someone help me figure out if welcomes figures are correct?

donkey123

By donkey123
in Welcome Finance

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5142 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

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

ozzywizard

ozzywizard

Posted
Posted

To check if their are other things wrong we would really need to check your contract, post it up for us minus any personnel details now to check your figures.

 

 

First off Ems calculations are bang on . . the APR is calculated at 30.6 .

 

 

Your saying your loan is for 2800 at an APR of 32.50 % over 36 months is :

monthly payment £116.53

interest £1,395.29

total repayable £4,195.29

 

and your insurance is 1019.25

monthly payments £42.42

total interest £507.91

total payable £1,527.16

 

............ so if we add up the interest of the loan and insurance we get 1903.20 add the acceptance fee of 75 is 1978.20 add loan of 2800 is 4778.20 then add insurance which is 5797.45 being total payable back from you to welcome.

 

so if we divide this figure by 36 we get true monthly payment of 161.04 .

 

welcome want you to pay back 158.98 which is total payable of 5723.28. so leaves you out at end of contract by 74.17 which tells me they forgot to intergrate your acceptance fee rather than getting the APR wrong.

  • Haha 1

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
ozzywizard

ozzywizard

Posted
Posted

can I add I did this by hand with no template etc and I had 5 kids running round me so if wrong I apologise in advance. . . . lol . . . will double check later but think its right :D . . you defo need to claim your PPI back. I can do the figures for you and also ask them to remove 75 from the loan for the acceptance fee as they forgot to intergrate it into the calculations anyway lol.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
ozzywizard

ozzywizard

Posted
Posted

1) Why do you now believe PPI policy is now not suitable for your needs.

 

Please refer to page one question one as not enough space to write here.

2) at the time you bought the ppi were you in paid employment.

 

Please refer to question one page one as not relevent to my complaint.

 

3) has the nature of your employment changed since you bought the ppi.

 

Please refer to question one page one as not relevent to my complaint.

 

4) was your job secure, was their risk of losing your job.

 

Please refer to question one page one as not relevent to my complaint.

 

5) when you bought the policy were you in good health.

 

Please refer to question one page one as not relevent to my complaint.

 

6) how long would your income of lasted if you had lost your job.

 

Please refer to question one page one as not relevent to my complaint.

 

7) how long would your income of have continued if you had been unable to work due to accident or sickness.

 

Please refer to question one page one as not relevent to my complaint.

 

8 ) at the time you bought the police did you have anyone who was financially dependant on you.

 

Please refer to question one page one as not relevent to my complaint.

 

9) at the time you bought the policy did you have any other policy that protected your income in event of sickness or accident.

 

Please refer to question one page one as not relevent to my complaint.

 

10) any other comments to support your claim.

 

Please see page one question ten as not enough space to write here.

 

......................... ......................... ......................... .....

 

seperate letter.

 

 

Response to question one.

I was informed by your agent that my loan would not be accepted unless I took out the payment protection insurances. I have subsequently discovered that all insurances should be optional; I was NEVER given any option to take the loan without the insurances and was never provided with a comparative quote for the loans without the insurance premiums attached.

 

 

Response to question ten.

I was explicitly informed by your sales agent that we would not in any circumstances qualify for the loan without insurances attached as I was a “bad creditor”.

This I now know to be incorrect and feel you have created an unfair relationship due to the fact that the attached insurances are supposed to be optional.

Quite simply we were never given the option of taking out the loan with no insurances attached, the insurances themselves were not fully explained (Other than they were a necessity) and therefore were not sold following an accurate analysis of whether or not we required said cover and therefore were missold.

Therefore questions 2-9 on your questionnaire are not applicable to be answered, there was no investigation at the time of the loans as to these circumstances and the suitability of the cover and looking back in hindsight on these would only cloud current matters.

Put simply it is irrelevant as to whether or not policies may have benefited me as the option to take these out was never presented and I was misinformed that they were in fact compulsory after later discovering that they were optional. My circumstances were not considered at the time of applying these policies to my loans; therefore play no part in assessing mis-selling after the event. I was told that I had to take out the insurance to get the loan and so was misinformed and would like this resolving immediately.

  • Haha 1

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
ozzywizard

ozzywizard

Posted
Posted

Thanks, its the only response as questions 2-9 are there to catch you out and if you do not complete form you are not assisting welcome with your claim so the quickest route is to answer but give nothing away. MajorPlayer has posted a lot on this and helped loads on this process.

Also the above procedure with welcome is proven to work for a fast paying result. You want the premiums back plus interest plus the 8% stat interest.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...