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 
        • 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

EGG PPI Refund +8%


Billy goat gruff
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5138 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

If Egg unlawfully extracted premiums for missold PPI they are bound to refund same unless they want to contest it in court. However if these PPI levies displayed in your statements were not paid off by the cardholder, then Egg could argue that because you never paid for them, they need never repay you, instead they would be justified to REVERSE these charges plus 8% per annum as a paper transaction.

 

If at any stage you had reduced your outstanding balance to zero or near zero, then you could argue you physically paid off the PPI levies, so now they should pay back into your pocket what was physically paid to Egg from your pocket.

 

If since then your balance again rose due to purchases, that would be due to subsequent separate debits, which should not be offset by PPI refunds.

 

Egg would say, as they extracted premiums from the account not from your pocket, then they would be justified in refunding the account so long as it remains open and in force.

 

If the account is no longer open, but was actually sold off into the ownership of a DCA, then that would be very different. They are legally bound to refund you, not the DCA. Egg never took premiums off the DCA so they cannot refund the DCA.

 

Unless the account had been sold, it would be a very difficult argument to carry against Egg, who are afraid they may refund you but you may not repay the account balance. I have never heard of anyone winning such an argument unless the account had been sold off to a DCA. I myself would not spend time trying.

 

Sorry if this is not the favoured answer, but very well done in securing such a handsome refund, the drinks are on you. :D

Edited by Mistermind

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...