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

Welcome Finance PPI mis sold by broker


markibubs
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4479 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 there,

 

I have been reading everything you guys are discussing... and I wondered whether someone could help... I have had a offer to settle my claim against from the FSCS company... but they are taking the remainder of what i owed off my current balance which i do not agree with.

 

It is money and I want it back... I have questioned this with both welcome and the FSCS.... but they say that this is their 'proto call' on how to deal with this situation. I obviously believe that this is total crap... Can anyone please help advice me on how to go about this?

 

Thank you!

Faye

 

Refuse to accept their offer and complain to the FOS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you should read Welcomes policy docs - it states throughout that it is Welcomes Policy - in fact the whole booklet is information on what welcomes policy covers, and how to claim on welcomes policy. So it is either their policy - or they have misled the the customer contrary to CPUTR 2008.

 

The broker did not 'sell' the policy, in the same way they did not 'sell' the finance - they acted as an intermediary for the sale of the credit agreement provided by welcome and the insurance policy provided by welcome.

 

The Policy would have been underwritten by an insurance company - usually Norwich Union in the case of Welcome, but this is not relevant and it cannot be claimed to be NU's policy. That would be like claiming that the loan was not from Welcome because RBS actually provided Welcome with the finance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm trying to say is that the OP could spend hours, days, months going after Welcome only to be told by Welcome, the FOS, and even the High Court (Soulsby v First Plus anyone...?) that they should go after the broker. Or he could go after the broker instead and save a lot of time. If the broker is still in business, and if they carried out the sale, case law states they are liable. If the broker is no longer in business a claim can be made to the FSCS. Or you could continue your crusade against Welcome and (probably) get nowhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That case you mention is a different set of circumstances - same as people quoting Harrison v Black Horse for secret commissions.

 

The broker was an intermediary - in the case you quote, as in the case of Harrison v Black Horse, it was claimed the lender was acting as broker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm merely trying to help the OP. If you like I can give you specific case law where PPI was sold by a broker rather than the finance company, and the judge ruled against the Claimant. Same goes for the FOS. And I'm not just talking Welcome, I'm talking finance providers in general. Issue a complaint againast the finance company, or a claim, you're talking time, expense, and difficulty as the Finance Provider refers you to ther broker over and over and over again. On the other hand, if the OP were to pursue the Broker or the FSCS, the OP would get redress. So my question to you, dad, is are you trying to help the poster to get redress or just trying to get one over on a certain finance company? If the latter, you should not be advising on this site. Just saying it how it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"For regulated agreements does not S56 CCA 1974 come into play...antecedent negotiations?" - I suppose this would depend on the reason for mis-selling. If misrepresentation, then arguably yes it would. If any other reason, possibly not. Explanatory notes in my version are a bit woolly on this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm merely trying to help the OP. If you like I can give you specific case law where PPI was sold by a broker rather than the finance company, and the judge ruled against the Claimant. Same goes for the FOS. And I'm not just talking Welcome, I'm talking finance providers in general. Issue a complaint againast the finance company, or a claim, you're talking time, expense, and difficulty as the Finance Provider refers you to ther broker over and over and over again. On the other hand, if the OP were to pursue the Broker or the FSCS, the OP would get redress. So my question to you, dad, is are you trying to help the poster to get redress or just trying to get one over on a certain finance company? If the latter, you should not be advising on this site. Just saying it how it is.

 

Was this a county court?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...