Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Help needed with PPI claim from 1999 - originally GE Capital Bank - now Santander who are NOT interested!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4717 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

Hi

 

Helping elderley lady with several health problems on Evans Store Card taken out with GE Money

in 1998. Santander took them over early 2010.

 

She was on benefit/severe eyesight problems. She had not been aware that she was being charged for PPI every month from 1998. Totally mis-sold.

 

Because PPI was taken out in 1999 (before FSA came into existence in 2005) the Financial Ombudsman Service are NOT able to help.

 

Santander are washing their hands of the complaint and have issued their final letter - making inaccurate assumptions which I find just damn rude and insulting.

 

Advice please as how to proceed. Dog with bone here.

 

Any help - gratefully received

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry sant are responsible as they brought the rights lock stock and barrel.

 

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

if you are saying that she was on benefits right from the very beginning – even when she was sold the insurance, then it is certainly mis-sold.

 

Have you got any statements? And who is it that she was paying money to?

 

Are you saying that she is still paying the PPI? Or did it end and in which case, when did it end?

 

Would you like to scan and post legible images of the letter that you have received.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

 

Thanks for your message.

 

She was on invalidity benefit at the time in 1998. She is now nearly 70 and on DLA and state pension.

 

She had not realised she had been paying for so called "account cover" for all these years till last year when she showed me her Evans Statement. This person also only has about 20% sight - so any letters in ordinary sized print she cant read.

 

Santander not interested. So far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

whom do the payments go to and whom is named on the statements?

they are your target

 

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

Please will you email on our admin address. We will need to have a look at some of the documents and also get the details of the whole story.

Also, if direct action was to be taken, it would have to be in her name.

 

Contact me

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

This is a classic mis-sold PPI insurance - mis-sold in 1999 to person aged 60 on disability and multiple health problems - so FinancialOmbudsman Service say not able to handle complaint as before 2005.

 

Santander being totally unreasonable issued final response.

 

Therefore, we are now going to issue county court claim.

 

Anyone been in same position - and any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

Many thanks:wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

No unfortunately not, but will be very interested to see how you get on.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...