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
  • Recommended Topics

Lloyds Bank to start making an honest living (sort of)


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5015 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

MONEYSAVINGEXPERT.COM NEWS COMMENT

Monday, 26 July 2010

Lloyds Banking Group to stop selling Payment Protection Insurance

Consumer Revenge site MoneySavingExpert.com has just learned Lloyds Banking Group (including Halifax) has stopped selling Payment Protection Insurance on all its loans, credit cards and mortgages. Instead it will simply hand out a generic leaflet about PPI with such products.

When the site asked the bank about this, all the Lloyds spokesperson would confirm was...

"Lloyds Banking Group stopped selling PPI from Friday, 23 July across all brands. The group does not expect this move to have an impact on income and the group will continue to receive income from existing policies."

Martin Lewis, creator of MoneySavingExpert.com, comments:

"This is a quite astonishing move. This insurance, which has been scandalously missold for years leaving many consumers in misery, is estimated to be worth up to five billion pounds a year for the industry.

"Frankly we're jumping for joy at this news, and hope the other big banks follow suit. The product itself isn't bad, it can provide useful protection to people if they're sick or lose their jobs as it covers their repayments, but people should go to competitive standalone insurers rather than banks. That's because they sell it at four or five times over the odds, often without checking suitability, meaning many have been duped into paying a hidden £1,000+ extra on policies that are worthless for them.

"To all those who've got or had one of these policies - even on a now paid off loan - I'd urgently suggest you check it's suitable, we've had over 900,000 template letters for PPI reclaiming downloaded and countless millions paid back, you may be eligible for serious money."

How will Lloyds claw back all of the money they are making from PPI policies? They'll probably start by increasing their charges and being tougher about them too.

 

I think that Lloyds announcement indicates that they aren't really able to sell the product without substantial misselling. They have finally given way to pressure from very half-hearted regulatory authorites.

 

Of course, with their present rates of interest so disproportionately high, this was a pretty good time to abandon the PPI rip-off scheme anyway. Notice the word "duped" in Martin Lewis' press release.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although this is good news, I feel they have not done this with the customers best intentions at heart.

 

The FSA and CC have already given there views on this product and made the selling of it very difficult indeed a ban was already in place and nearly all financial organisations had already withdraw it from literature and websites.

 

Lloyds had no choice but to take this step just a shame hey did not do it a lot sooner instead of wasting millions in putting up a fight and trying to justify its worth.

 

PF

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a brilliant result for consumers in the UK and completely proves that campaigning works.

 

However, the biggest challenge faced is the banks' attitude to their customers. How are they going to move away from treating us collectively like a profit centre and instead treat us as individuals with needs that must be responded to – and do it without losing face?

 

How is the present uncompetitive market ever going to deliver the momentum to achieve it?

 

The tide is slowly changing but when will we experience a sea change? A tipping point when massive and swift action floods the banking market?

 

As I said, a great result (especially as it's Lloyds TSB) and here's to many more in the near future.

 

Bornrich

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets be frank here, LLoyds have cancelled the sale of PPI for commercial reasons more than customer pressure.

 

Martin Lewis has done a fantastic job in opening up peoples eyes to the fact that they may have been taken advantage of over the purchase of unecessary PPI but this is not the reason for them pulling it. There have been many missold cases but the black and white of it is that with claims on PPI/ASU being the highest that they have ever been given the state of the country they can only see PPI being unprofitable due to the increased sales process regulation and the increased likelyhood of a claim being made - effectively its more expensive to sell with more of a chance of a claim being made. The misselling aspect is big but in reality the profits that were made from those products have been made and taken already, the losses are made when the claims are paid back (i.e. Now) and we know who has to foot the bill for this - us!

 

Its not necessarily a good thing as with a major provider out of the marketplace, the likelyhood of increased premiums for those who legitimately would benefit from this type of policy will increase and availability will decrease (As per personal lending impact at present).

Link to post
Share on other sites

They appear to have forgotten to mention what they're going to do about re-imbursing all the people who have been mis-sold policies. I wonder why.:rolleyes:

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...