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
      • 160 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
  • Recommended Topics

Help im confused about the ppi claim - Urgent


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4643 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

 

I have seen alot of posts on here that state the refund of PPI the 6 year rule dose not apply, I have asked a car credit company for a refund and they are telling customers that if it was over 6 years ago they can not claim there ppi back.

 

I need to know can i claim back if it is over 6 years and if so are there any particular quotes i should be giving them ?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scouserlad

 

There is no time limit for mis-sold PPI. They are fobbing you off.

 

Can you give more details and what correspondence have you sent these people thus far?

 

Who are they?

 

I am happy to help you with figures etc. if you wish.

 

Regards

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

It is car Craft, i have spoken with there representative here who got a call back from there complaints unit who is putting this in writing that they will only go back 6 years.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scouserlad

 

What they are telling you is nonsense

 

There is a process to be followed so first off, do you have a copy of the loan agreement? If so can you post it up as a PDF file (MINUS ALL PERSONAL INFORMATION)

 

Go to the fos website, make sure you fall within the categories for a mis-selling claim and download their consumer questionaire ready for completion.

 

A Schedule of Claim needs to be prepared hence the request for the agreement.

 

You will then submit a letter to the loan company along with the schedule of claim and the questionaire to claim back the ppi.

 

As I said, don't wory about the six year bit. When was this loan taken out?

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent Scouserland...thanks for that

 

So your PPI payment was £34.88 per month. I assume the loan ran its full distance of 48 months?

 

I've attached a spreadsheet which will calculate your claim for you. Please note that you need to list entries in columns A (date of payment), B (Nature of Payment i.e. PPI Premium) and C (Amount i.e. £34.88. The rest of the calculation is done for you.

 

You then need to amend the personal information in the blue section at the top. A copy of this schedule is sent, together with the fos questionaire and a covering letter, to the company you were paying the premiums to.

 

ims

 

StatutoryInt.xls

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Car craft are still sticking to the "6 years" rule and have confirmed they will put it in writing early this week

 

What next ?

 

Hi there

 

Forget what they say.....carry on as advised.

 

A mis-sold policy is mis-sold......matters not whether it was 1 year, 3 years or 10 years ago. As I said, they are fobbing you off.

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28781[/ATTACH]Hi

 

Please see atatched reply from car craft, I spoken with the customer service rep here on this forum.

 

 

Car Craft response is a nonsense.

 

PPI mis-selling is not stat barred...what a lad of cr*p and reading through the rest of it their position is ridiculous. In fact them saying that they cannot disprove going back that far has played right into your hands

 

Carry on claiming as previously advised and ignore these fools

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

You have two options.

 

The first one is to pass it to fos to deal with although, as you say, that can be a slow process.

 

The second one is to sue in court. This will be quicker. You will need to prepare your schedule of claim as mentioned in previous posts and you will need to send Carcraft a 14 day letter before action together with that schedule. If they still fail to cough up, you issue in court.

 

Regards

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I will write to them tonight to the head office address, sending recorded post and allow them 14 days from the date of the letter to reply, could somebody help me with a "schedule of claim".

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Post #7 has the spreadsheet which, when completed is the schedule of claim.

 

Did you get the payment date information back yet? Without that information you will have to use dates that are as close as you can estimate for the time being but you will need them when it comes to issuing in court.

 

Regards

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Carcraft Customer Service Manager

Hi AllI think there has been some confusion, the letter states you are statute barred from taking legal action because the law only provides for claimants to bring claims for negligence within a period of 6 years from the date of sale. You will note it also states Carcraft were not regulated by the FSA at the time of transaction, therefore the judicial review has no bearing on your claim.ThanksLinzi

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi AllI think there has been some confusion, the letter states you are statute barred from taking legal action because the law only provides for claimants to bring claims for negligence within a period of 6 years from the date of sale. You will note it also states Carcraft were not regulated by the FSA at the time of transaction, therefore the judicial review has no bearing on your claim.ThanksLinzi

 

Claims for mis-selling PPI are not statute barred. The OP has choices...if fos wash their hands of it then the OP should consider taking court action.

 

Regards

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Carcraft Customer Service Manager

Hi imsAs the OP purchased OVER 6 years ago, he cannot legally sue Carcraft or any other company for negligence.Carcraft were not regulated by the FSA at the time of purchasing - therefore the FSA will not look into this complaint.I hope this helps clarify the issue and complaint.If not then i suggest the OP seeks further advice. I am not trying to put up brick walls, merely stating the truth.Many thanksLinzi

Link to post
Share on other sites

still does detract from the fact that the PPI was mis-sold and under the 'mistake' clause under the limitations act sec 32c can be reclaimed.

 

just because a firm was not regulated, does not mean it was ok for them to ....and now get away with 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

Guest Carcraft Customer Service Manager

negligence comes under the same banner as 'mis-representation' which is what the OP stated occurred when he came to Carcraft to purchase.ThanksLinzi

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scouserlad

 

I see you're online now.

 

As you can see, your friends at CarCraft have been on today.

 

Now I can understand that the rep may have been just trying to protect the company's interests...nothing wrong with that.

 

OR it could be a smokescreen to put you off.

 

Anyway, as you can see, the cat's out of the bag and I just wanted to confirm that your claim is for money paid under a mistake (not negligence) and as such Section 32(1)© Limitations Act applies. This means that you are not constrained by any 6 year limitation.

 

This is the basis for you claim going back to whenever.

 

Best wishes

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...