Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They won't have offered you a course when they sent the NIP because they don't know who was driving until you tell them.   If you are eligible for a course they will almost certainly offer it - irrespective of whether you've refused one in the past.  If they do offer you a course, I think you'd be daft not to accept it.  (I understand many drivers refuse because they think they'll be treated like naughty schoolkids, but apparently it's not like that and most people find them very useful and learn something new.)
    • Thanks. Sound advice again. I will tread carefully.    I have checked the first correspondence that they sent to me and there is no sign of an offer of a speed awareness course, I do remember being offered one a good few years ago but did not take that up at the time. That may be the reason for it not being offered again.     Looks like my only option now is to shut up and pay up.    Thanks for your input which is much appreeciated.    
    • Just about and card or loan clamform thread here You agree to mediation until the actual call on the day If by then you still dont have enough info to make an informed decision..you say no.   3 copies n180.  1 wit you
    • Think they would be silly to appeal as a more forensic look at VCS MO and shenanigans could turn round and bite Simon on the bum.
    • Experts are saying that the PM's roadmap is more about dates than data, the opposite of what he claims. He could be making a rod for his own back again.   https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/26/experts-criticise-boris-johnson-putting-dates-covid-roadmap?CMP=share_btn_tw
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Old Egg card claiming PPI and they say not over 6 yrs - how come?

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3693 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I wrote to Egg asing for PPI back because I was self employed at the time and they charged PPi on the card which I could never have claimed against. It's not a lot of money, but compounded at the 15% rate at the time it comes out at over £1000 going back to 2001/2.


They wrote back saying it is egg policy not to repay if the claim is for money which is more than 6 yrs or more after the complaint.


Policy or not it's my money. They are referring me to the FOS, but is there anyone here who has successfully claimed pre 6 yrs? This is not a Limitations issue as it's when you find out, not how long ago the offence took place.


Anyone any thought about how I should go about this? Do I just issue an N1 and risk court and the hanging judges who hate debtors or go the FOS route and wait for the next year or two while they make up their minds?


There must be a way....?


And another point, on this card account I was written to by Egg in 2006 stating that under s.18.2 of the card conditions they had now transfered their rights and the Egg card account to Capquest Investments Ltd - does that mean I should be claiming from capquest as it goes on to say my existing relationship with Egg in respect of the account has now ceased and my account is now the sole responsibility of capquest?



Edited by Smarterchick
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 years? Why not 6 months, or 6 days? That is ridiculous. Maybe they are trying to confuse people with the statute of limitations, hoping they'll just drop their complaint quietly. Just out of curiosity how long did it take them to reach this conclusion, from the time you sent off your initial letter?


I hope somebody else will answer your question re: FOI or court approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It all began in September...There was no mention of Limitations, that's was peed me off. This was just company 'policy' !


I will go legal, I have no hesitation, but having spent the best part of two years in and out of court preparing documentation I would rather have been treated in a civil way and not put through all this - I have a life too lest they forget. - I get fed up of all this winning! LOL Why can't they just own up and pay up - they will in the end, but they use these intimidatory tactics to scare people off.


I am actually getting a trifle miffed that these companies actually know they are wrong yet continue to get away with these things hoping the masses will never raise a query. They should be made to accept they are wrong and AUTOMATICALLY have to repay people, not make each and every one claim whilst pocketing the rest. There's something wrong with the regulatory process that allows this to happen.


I complained to the OFT once about the fact they should stop all repossessions by a company when their licence was being investigated when it ran out - 'not our place to do that' they said - madness, it's no different if an athlete gets dope tested and stopped from running until the investigations over, why are these finance companies so different?


Money and politics, that's the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Smarterchick.


I recently submitted a similar complaint to yours (that dates back even further) - if Egg were to respond in a similar way then I would be absolutely furious. And if it's true that the FOS would take "a year or two" to look at my complaint then I would be of the mind to go to court.


It's our policy to chase them to the gates of hell!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Smarterchick, a few points:


1) The route seems to be FOS first, and if they don't uphold your complaint then go to court. If you go to court first and lose then you won't be able to go to the FOS later.


2) Apparently the FOS won't handle complaints about PPI taken out prior to July 2001, according to this post. Edit: some confusion - they did handle it. Strange.


3) The banks are going for a judicial review into the way the FOS handles complaints over PPI, and the advice around here seems to be to get your complaint in ASAP to ensure that they handle it. Statement from the FOS here. There's a four day hearing set for Jan 25th (see sticky).


I think that's right, but happy to be corrected on anything.

Edited by igglepiglet
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...