Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your attachment showing the cinema parking restrictions seems crystal clear. Let's see what the photos turn up.
    • Meter certification periods re given in The Meters (Certification) Regulations 1998, Schedule 4. From there you can check if they are correct about your specific meter .. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/1566/schedule/4 If they're telling porkies then you have e clear grounds to tell them to take  hike. If they're correct or if you haven't been able to confirm then you have  few options. You could just keep fobbing them off. In general Octopus can't keep up with demand for smart meters. It took 9 months to get our. So they may not push too hard. Or ask if you can install your own choice of meter. The Electricity Act 1989 cover this in Schedule 7 (2) and (2A) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/29/schedule/7 Or fight the them and their enforcement. Or go off supply.
    • We received a copy of the completed Directions Questionnaire (N181) from the solicitors along with a draft copy of their directions. I am on a course today so can upload over the weekend if needed. By 4pm on 16th May both parties must each give standard disclosure of documents by way of list by category. By 4pm on 30th May any request for inspection or copies of docs must be made and compiled 14 days thereafter. I will provide more over the weekend.
    • Have you asked for advice from your students union people? HB
    • I (and other respondents) always advise “not getting caught in a lie” it hardens their response. Why would they now believe protestations of remorse and “I won’t do it again” if they've already seen you'd lie and say it was a one-off when it wasn't..  You can try approaching the prosecutor on the day, but "I wouldn't hold my breath" …..  
  • 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 claim succes and claims on hold.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4757 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 have recently sent in payment protection insurance claims to the royal bank of scotland and to the nat west,

these were sent at the same time for mis selling of these policies to me,

 

i have recived a response from the nat west and they cleared my complaint with them in under 4 weeks and made an offer of settlement for just over 3k,

,which i have accepted,

 

however the royal bank of scotland have responded to me saying that current claims for mis sold payment protection insurance are currently on hold due to this enquiry that is underway.

 

i have sent in a complaint form to the f o s about the royal bank of scotland and cant understand that the nat west

have settled my complaint and they are part of the royal bank of scotland group.

 

as i was aware that no waivers had been given to the banks by the f s a and were to handle complaints of payment protection insurance as per their guidelines.

 

would i be able to point this out to the f o s that the nat west have settled my complaint with them,

where as the royal bank of scotland have said that claims are on hold.

 

or would they say that my current complaint with the royal bank of scotland is a seperate issue..

 

thanks in advance.

 

andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

High Street banks putting all payment protection insurance (PPI) complaints on hold. 11/11/2010

The UK's largest bank, which includes Lloyds TSB, Bank of Scotland and Halifax, has taken a step back from placing a hold on all Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) mis-selling complaints. However, HSBC, HFC and MBNA are all placing new and in some cases existing complaints on hold pending the result of the British Bankers' Association (BBA) judicial review to stop the regulator, the FSA, forcing lenders to review millions of PPI mis-selling cases which they rejected or even those that they have not received complaints about. This is despite the new regulations not affecting the vast majority of complaints they are receiving and the Financial Services Authority (FSA) stating that banks must continue to handle complaints until the legal process ends. No formal response has been issued by the FSA about the banks’ actions. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) who deal with complaints about lenders and insurers have kept quiet. They are maintaining that if a bank does not comply with the FSA guidelines it will proceed with an investigation. Banks and other lenders have been mis-selling PPI, designed to cover loan and credit card payments if you cannot work, on a massive scale for years. In the last five years, there have been more than a million complaints made to firms about PPI, while the FSA has taken action against 24 companies in that time and issued numerous warnings about mis-selling.

 

See; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/incomeprotection/8059528/Lloyds-snubs-FSA-as-it-puts-PPI-claims-on-hold.html

Edited by cerberusalert
Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd turn it the otherway.......

 

 

why have natwest settled?

 

is your claim figure correct?

 

 

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

Nightsurf,

 

RBS and all financial institutions have already been given clear instructions from the FSA which state that claims for mis-sold ppi are to continue as per usual while this case is going on.

 

Personally, I would write back to RBS and remind them of the FSA guidance, requesting they commence a full and complete investigation into the selling of your policy as per the FSA guidelines.

 

Point out that failure to do so will result in your claim being forwarded directly to the Financial Ombudsman Service and a complaint to the FSA.

 

Good luck

 

DJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

how this started is my partner was having a clear out of old paper work and came across old loan agreements from 2003,

 

she was going to shred these documents and i had a look through them first,

and it came to our attention that we were mis sold ppi.

that we didnt ask for or request,

 

as i was at that time working as a self employed,and we couldnt recollect any of the information

that was on the loan agreements one with nat west and one with royal bank of scotland,

 

all we did was write a letter of compaint to them both and our letters we acknowledged as being recieved and would be looked in to,

 

we recieved a telephne call from nat west asking us about our complaint and would recieve a response in the next few days,

 

fast result,

 

£3.500.as settlement ughhh.

 

however the royal bank of scotland wrote and told us that claims for ppi were currently on hold,

and we could refer our complaint to the f o s if we wished..

 

the figures for the nat west loan were..

amount of loan £6.500

interest £2.391.16.

ppi £4.350.42

interest for ppi £1.380.74.

 

total amount £8891.16

loan ppi and interest £5.730

 

total amount.£14620.

 

 

this settlement figure was as they wrote a gesture of good faith

and didnt admit liability or deny any liability.

 

as we were in need of some money to settle other matters we accepted.

 

as its some thing we didnt have and could have made use of,

due t the way things are these days.

and me currently not working due to incapacity.

 

seems there wasnt any argumets in sorting this out for us.

although we were bemused as to how it was dealt with....

 

i.am not sure how my other claim would be with royal bank of scotland

but these figures are..

amount of loan.£6.800.

amount of interest.£2.691.16..

ppi £4.754.74

interest for ppi £1880.72

total cost of loan an ppi and interest £16126.32..84

payments of £191.98.

 

we recall this loan being paid of early.

 

but cant remember when.

we are confused with the whole thing to be honest

,but the money came just right.

 

thanks again

 

andy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey how about editing the msg and adding a few blank lines huh?

 

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

dx100uk

 

sorry about that hey,at this mment in time i only have the use of one arm and typing is a bit of an issue at the min

thnaks for the response from you all reagrding this

andy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not an issue

 

i've done it

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...