Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Reprimand issued to Birmingham Children’s Trust Community Interest company in respect of Article 5(1)(f) and 32(1)(b) and 2. A child protection plan containing inappropriate personal data, in the form of criminal allegations against a child, was sent to the family the plan was produced for. Although the care plan itself was authorised for the family to view, the criminal allegations were not relevant to the plan, or authorised for the family’s view. The investigation highlighted that appropriate technical and organisational measures were not in place at the time of the breach.View the full article
    • Does anyone know what legal term I need to use to say they have to send a deferral form?
    • Just had another look through but I can't locate anything like that. They did, in a previous letter, reference my call in June 2021 but I cannot see this referenced in what they have sent. Worth requesting this specifically do you think? 
    • I see the poops (how appropriate) after 14 years of massively deteriorated monitoring and quality, are designating sewage polluted rivers as 'bathing water sites', presumably hoping that the high magic of designating them 'bathing water sites' and trusting the water companies who have pored poo in thewater for profit - will at least monitor it better if not stop polluting after the magic ritual. Undoubtedly this feeble effort has nothing to do with a GE pending after 14 years of abuse eh?   Four wild swimming spots along the River Dart in Devon that suffer from high levels of sewage pollution have been designated by the Government as “bathing water sites“.   River Dart given 'bathing' status after swimmers desert it over sewage concerns INEWS.CO.UK Bathing water sites welcome their new designation - but warn much work is needed to ensure pollution levels are reduced   A poop Overlord was alleged to have been heard mutter - well if we win the election, we dont care what any monitors say and we'll just bury the results, and if labour win its their problem.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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

FOS & Time Limits?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4858 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

Wonder if anyone can help, apologies in advance as this goes on a bit. I'm helping a relative attempt to reclaim an extortionate amount of PPI payments taken for 4 years. When the account was initally opened the PPI was added without being requested, and my relative asked several times for it to be removed.

 

Dec 08 they wrote a letter asking for it to stop, it didn't. Emailed and wrote several times in 2009, then I got involved in July and sent the official PPI complaint template letter. Had a response in Sept 09, basic rejection letter. Sent another letter in Oct 09 telling them we didn't accept their response and asking for all paperwork on account, which was received in Nov 09. Sent them another letter in Nov 09 pointing out their clerical errors and asking them to sort it, no response ever received. Complaint to FOS went in April 10 (delay due to illness and family issues). FOS said they were dealing with it from then. Nothing heard from FOS for several months, calls to chase always met with "you're in the queue" response. In Oct 10, FOS write to relative saying they can't look at the complaint in full because it was submitted after the 6 months from the Banks 'final response' which was allegedly sent in Sept 09. Not impressed!

 

I'm not sure how the bank can ignore any correspondence after Sept 09, particularly when the information they sent back proved they'd made an error?

 

Secondly, the complaint was received by FOS on 07/04/10 and they responded on 29/10/10 - which is over the 6 months the Financial Institution have themselves to respond - how can they apply one rule to my relative regarding time limits, and another completely to the financial institution (who remain nameless buy rhyme with *cough*west).

 

Thirdly the finacial institution have offered to refund the PPI payments taken after Dec 08, as they put in acknowledged my relatives earlier letter in Sept 09 asking for it to stop, as a 'goodwill gesture'. The FOS will investigate this part of the complaint, but nothing else?

 

Is this right? :| Can anyone help?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

OP, obviously it's not right. when you get the PPI repayments make sure they pay the interest on the monies returned.

if you haven't already written to the fos about the time discrepenancy and depending on their response i would get a court judgement

against them.

 

p.s. i don't know whether you can take the fos to court for negligence (hopefully someone can set me straight), but surely it's worth

trying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I think you have things muddled up. The 6 month rule you mentioned doesnt apply to financial institutions, it applies to you!

 

This is how it goes.

 

You complain, firm has 8 weeks to issue response.

Firm issues final response, if you want to take it to FOS, you have 6 months (Check your letter). If you raise no new issues they do not have to respond (as you probably argued the same point, there is nothing for them to say as they have already issued a final response to you)

 

But, FOS received your complaint in April 2010, which was 7 months after, so you missed the boat as you complained too late.

 

FOS are swamped which is why they took a while to respond, but this is irrelevent in this case. FOS are not at fault.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OP, take the matter to court. The fos are useless anyway and would've sided with the bank. i know this from

personal experience.

 

good luck

 

Actually fos uphold a majority of ppi complaints. Perhaps your complaint wasn't very strong.

 

You can't take fos to court as they are a FREE indepedant arbitrator which you approached to them to look at a complaint. You would need to take the bank/firm to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually fos uphold a majority of ppi complaints. Perhaps your complaint wasn't very strong.

 

You can't take fos to court as they are a FREE indepedant arbitrator which you approached to them to look at a complaint. You would need to take the bank/firm to court.

 

the FoS is useless and anyone who defends them, is equally so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have to say that I have received a prompt and efficient response to my complaint from the FOS.

 

That being said. I shall await the outcome but as far as I am concerned I have acted within all the time limits and am awaiting until 8th February for the 8 weeks to be up and hope for a response from the company I am complaining about!

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...