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
      • 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

Santander PPI on Debenhams Store Card


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3393 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

Here is an explanation as to what the outcome and effect of the High Court PPI case and explains that brokers and intermediaries who sold PPI who were not covered by GISC may be more difficult than Banks and Insurers who were subject to from 2001...an interesting read

 

http://www.out-law.com/page-10509

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Got a letter from the underwriters today saying they are unable to assist at this time HOWEVER they are collaberating with the FOS to resolve this matter and will be in touch once this review is complete!!!

so i continue to wait and ponder as to how long is a piece o string!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi nimmynim.

That is an interesting response as it is different to mine, where they referred me back to Santander.

So it looks like something is going on in the background.

I will be trying to speak to FOS as I have not had an update since before Xmas , so I will update if any news.

 

Regards

W

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at DISP 3.1 to 3.10 in the FSA handbook..it states that for evidential purposes... pre-2005 agreements... it should be used as a 'guide'...does not say that it does not apply at all...

 

 

Scope

The guidance applies to complaints about the sale of all types of PPI contract, whatever the basis on which it was sold and irrespective of whether the policy is still in force, was cancelled during the policy term or ran its full term (DISP App 3.1.1G).

For banks and insurers, the new regime covers complaints about PPI sales going back to 1st December 2001.

Brokers and intermediaries, however, have only been subject to FSA regulation since 14th January 2005. The FSA has confirmed that DISP applies to complaints against intermediaries about earlier sales if the intermediary was a member of the General Insurance Standards Council (GISC) at the time of the sale and the subject matter was covered by its rules.

Although the GISC code did not include many of the more detailed provisions now found in ICOBS, the FSA is satisfied that its general principles are sufficiently similar to those in the Handbook.

Sections in the final amended DISP text that have been given the status of "evidential provisions" will, however, only apply as guidance to complaints about pre-2005 sales (DISP App 3.10). Guidance is illustrative, but not binding, whereas compliance with an evidential provision will be taken as evidence that the firm has complied with FSA requirements.

For non-GISC sales (which would be outside the scope of DISP), complainants have to rely on common law principles, such as negligence or (where the broker was acting as agent of the insurer) the duty of utmost good faith or the general law on misrepresentation.

 

taken from

http://www.out-law.com/page-10509

Edited by means2anend
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

I'm just in the process of starting this same action on behalf of my wife so am thankful of the comments so far: even if they aren't exceptionally positive about a good result.

I know I read something somewhere about a lady who won her battle against a store card on the basis that it had been "upgraded" to a bank card, ie similar I would have thought to Debenhams being issued by Santander. Possibly even the same set-up exactly.

The balance of the card was voided as it was unenforceable as no agreement had been signed by the customer.

 

On the probability that this situation is one that does indeed apply to Debenhams - Santander, can anyone enlighten me on when the "upgrade" took place and what paperwork, if any, was put out requiring any signature of acceptance?

 

Have now found the court case I mentioned. Just click here.

 

Just for the record, and to show how well worthwhile these actions are, I have already won a £25k refund from my Barclaycard and another £7k from a loan agreement that had just completed with another for almost £2k for another small loan many years ago.

 

Off on holiday to Tenerife on 19th of June when the £25k will be through.......

Edited by Lynnzer
Found example of court case referred to
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Hi

Out of nowhere Genworth have written to say they have reconsidered and have offered to refund premiums plus simple interest. As they denied responsibility and referred me back to Santander . I wonder whether FOS have made a case on these claims.

FOS have yet to update me on any progress made, all I have received from them in a year is one we are dealing with this but have a lot of complaints letter.

Has anyone else received an offer , they have given me 30 days to decide ( this is the second offer). What was also interesting was they had data going back beyond the period Santander provided to me.

 

W

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello WFLOSS

From Post #9

Hi

FOS have asked me to submit my claim to Financial Insurance the underwriter,

I was wondering, could you explain who/how Genworth are invloved please. I have a similar PPI issue with Santander/Debenhams for a card taken out in 199*. Santander have sent an alleged copy policy where Financial Insurance is named but not Genworth. Have not contacted Financial Insurance yet. Thanks t

Edited by tedney
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Genworth is the trading name of Financial Insurance , so they are one and the same.

If you read my earlier posts it sets out the process I went through as advised by FOS

 

But in summary Santander refused, referred to FLA but decided not to bother with them so contacted FOS who advised making a claim with Financial Insurance. They refused and referred back to Santander, so back to FOS for 12 months until I received the offer.

 

Good Luck

 

W

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
FOS have just written to say Genworth are accepting responsibility for debenhams ppi

Hello crampers. Do you have a thread about your debenhams ppi claim please? Could you post a link here, or provide some info about your debenhams ppi claim. I am sure many here would be interested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The claim is ongoing with the FOS it was stalled due to The Financial Insurance Company (Genworth) arguing that they were not responsible or liable, the FOS has today informed me that after 2 years Genworth has accepted responsibility for misselling and that they would be contacting me. Signifigant development.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The claim is ongoing with the FOS it was stalled due to The Financial Insurance Company (Genworth) arguing that they were not responsible or liable, the FOS has today informed me that after 2 years Genworth has accepted responsibility for misselling and that they would be contacting me. Signifigant development.

 

OK Thanks for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is good stuff as I also am pursuing on bhalf of colleague Debenhams Store Card/Ge Capital One/Santander/ taken out pre-2000....inroads appear to be made...do you have Genworths Address....whaich is the appropriate address to send to.....Financial Insurance or Genworths???

Thanks much

:smile:

 

WHICH WAS SOLD AT POINT OF SALE...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
:bump: the above address please anyone...thanks
Hello Means, Here you go: Financial Insurance Co. Ltd. Building 11, Chiswick Park, Chiswick High Road, London W4 5XR. This is from some SAR details sent to me by Santander, this is their registered office, also The Financial Assurance Company Limited. Not sure how current this is, as I have not (Yet!) written to them here. Good Luck. Regards t
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...