Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
    • Finally, finally, finally found it!  It's this para that talks about the legitimate interest and a two-hour parking limit. 57_extracted_WS Combined excl Ex2 .pdf
    • Thank you FTMDave. I've made the suggested changes and will see if there is any other feedback before posting a final copy.  I would be grateful if you could attached the Beavis judgment as I can't seem to find it. Do I also need to attach copies of the other judgments referenced in the WS?  And is there an easy way to find them? Many thank in advance!
    • Hi,  It has been very stressful. I have just received a letter of 'Notice of Transfer of Proceedings' which states the case has been transferred to my local court and to await judge's directions. Is there still a possibility that it will not go to court? The other issue I now have is that I am moving abroad for work in the next few months and now might not actually be able to attend the court hearing!  I am not sure what the best course of action is now. I feel like after all this, the MET are going to win anyway! HELP! 
    • Thanks for jumping in Bazza.  I understand that some people would suggest this.  But no. The moot point is that there should not be any debt.  There shouldn't be any reason for me to be made B.  The lender / receiver are responsible for the property not selling in a timely manner.  Whoever heard of a (well-located nice) property not selling in >5y?    They have no reasons.   Disclosure has subsequently offered staggering evidence which corroborates lender bad behaviour, bribery, and collusion/ interference with the receiver.  I am holding them to account for this.  It is clear they don't want this evidence in the public domain - it will shred their reputation.   (One also has to understand that the ceo - with collusion and conflict of interest (using same lawyers as lender) and receiver - tried to get the property cheap for his own use) They now want to agree a settlement.  I have separately reported a lawyer for negligence to the LO and SRA. I want to report the receiver as soon as I understand how to. I also would like to find some legal means of getting the property sold.
  • 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

Egg, PPI, sharp practice!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4928 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 wrote to Egg recently demanding about £1100 of CRP (PPI) including interest, they wrote to me on the 22nd September saying they were looking into it.

 

On Friday the 8th Oct I received a letter back denying any evidence to support my claim, but as a gesture of goodwill offered about £600, they said they were only prepared to go back six years, I dont accept that the six years is relevant as I only recently discovered the charges.

 

But this is where I think they are trying to be clever the letter was dated the 27th September but posted on the 6th October and only gives me until the 11th October (tomorrow) to accept the offer, clearly does not give me any time to consider what to do.

 

I intend to write to them refusing the offer and demanding the whole amount, the difference is not much more than the £500 it would cost them if I involve the FOS, but I am annoyed about the way they have tried to get out of this by manipulating the dates.

Dispatch, “We have a 911, Armed Robbery in progress, see Surplus Store corner of Peebles Drive and West 24th Street”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Satter

 

I think you've pretty much sussed out their tactics. You are quite right, if you've just discovered that you've been mis-sold PPI, then the Limitation Act 1980 states that the clock starts at the point that the discovery is made. I think you should add interest to your claim, they've had use of your money. You can also take the matter to the FOS or Small Claims Court. You will find spreadsheets and templates in the Library, it will help you work out the interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Well Egg have replied they are sticking to their first letter and will only refund CPR going back six years and that this is a gesture of goodwill and they accept no liability.

Dispatch, “We have a 911, Armed Robbery in progress, see Surplus Store corner of Peebles Drive and West 24th Street”

Link to post
Share on other sites

typical crap

 

why are you going for 8%

 

if this is a CC it should be at their int rate they charged you!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the 8%, I thought that was all I could claim.

 

Thinking of accepting the offer as a part payment and going down the FOS route for the rest.

Dispatch, “We have a 911, Armed Robbery in progress, see Surplus Store corner of Peebles Drive and West 24th Street”

Link to post
Share on other sites

no reject it.

 

if you have the cca then 9/10 fos make them cough

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Satterthwaite,

 

Just had a chat with the FOS yesterday re. my claim for PPI refund from Egg.

 

Egg initially argued with the FOS that as my PPI started in 1999, that the FOS could not rule on it.

 

FOS disagreed with Egg and my case has been passed to an adjudicator.

 

So, the point of all this? Egg may only like to go back 6 years but a, there is no time limit of claims for PPI, and b, a precident has now been set that Egg have to go back to at least 1999.

 

Which would cover a lot of claims I think.

 

Regards,

 

Bosun.

Please note: I have no formal qualifications in this area and any advice offered is given in good faith. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...