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

ppi help


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4809 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 sent off the fso forms to ge money which became 8 weeks old on the 23/12, i received a letter back after the 8 weeks saying they had closed the complaint, i called and asked why and it transpires they did it in error.

It was brought to my attention that as i put two claims (one for 2002 and one for 2004) only the last on would be looked at and i will need to send another complaint for the 2002 claim. The outcome will be that it is time barred.

I understand that i need to go to the FLA rather than the FSO as the claim was 2004.

 

any pointers in the right direction would be much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly is not time barred, no matter what they may tell you.

 

Personally, I would contact the FOS and ask if they will take on your claim. They will be able to advise you on your next steps.

 

Good luck

 

DJ

 

I am taking a bank through court at the moment trying to reclaim ppi and one of their defences is statute of limitations.

 

This can be challenged if you investigate the term discovery.... Essentially the clock actually starts from the point you discover a problem...

 

Z

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
Letter back from ge money today stating as far as they are concerned all points raised in the 2004 complaints are not justified so they have closed the complaint do i now escalate to the fos for this one ?

 

2 things.

 

1,Yes they can time bar, if you dont complain within 6 years of the mis-sale or 3 year from knowing that there is something wrong then its time-barred.

2, It does not fall under FOS jurisdication,you have already been told this. FOS cant help you. The FLA (Financial Leasing Assocation) may be able to help you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They may claim it's time barred, but it's your money and you want it back, [/url]

 

 

that is actually wrong. If PPI was mis-sold then its a refund of premiums with 8% interest. If not mis-sold, like any other insurance you are not entitled to it back.

Insurance is not a policy to take out and gain premiums back years later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 things.

 

1,Yes they can time bar, if you dont complain within 6 years of the mis-sale or 3 year from knowing that there is something wrong then its time-barred.

2, It does not fall under FOS jurisdication,you have already been told this. FOS cant help you. The FLA (Financial Leasing Assocation) may be able to help you.

 

2, i have not been told this on the forum. You are of course saying that what w are told by ge money is to be taken without question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that is actually wrong. If PPI was mis-sold then its a refund of premiums with 8% interest. If not mis-sold, like any other insurance you are not entitled to it back.

Insurance is not a policy to take out and gain premiums back years later.

 

I am aware that "Insurance is not a policy to take out and gain premiums back years later". So which lender do you work for?

Link to post
Share on other sites

rnp,

 

Have GE money said anything in their letter about this being their final decision?

 

If not, then you will need to write back to them and get their final decision in writing. Once you have this, you can refer their case to the FOS.

 

Good luck

 

DJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
2 things.

 

1,Yes they can time bar, if you dont complain within 6 years of the mis-sale or 3 year from knowing that there is something wrong then its time-barred.

2, It does not fall under FOS jurisdication,you have already been told this. FOS cant help you. The FLA (Financial Leasing Assocation) may be able to help you.

 

there is no time limit on PPI reclaims.

 

under limitations act sec 32c it 'when you became aware'

and

i dont know where this 3 yrs comes from either........

 

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

You wouldn't know.

 

Yes it does exist, its in fsa's DISP rules. Some firms may excercise it as its not in line with tcf (treating customers fairly) and different interpretation of the rules. After the 3 years since knowing or 6 since the sale it falls out of fos jurisdiction.

Edited by dirkuberpower
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...