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 Store card PPI NOT upheld


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4555 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

BAD NEWS!

 

Got letter from Santander stating that 'the insurance was set up on my account on 20th April 2004 blah blah It was sold to you over the phone by one of our advisors who explained the main features of the product and the price. The insurance was added to your account because you chose to do so. However you had an opportunity to change your mind as once you decided to take the product, a policy summary and policy document were mailed to you for your review. blah blah I understand you believe that you are not covered by Account cover insurance, as you are now self employed.However, you are covered by the insurance as I can confirm that being self employed does not exclude you from the main benefits of the cover.

 

Since then shown on your statement blah blah

 

I can find no evidence of mis-selling this insurance; therefore I am unable to refund the premiums applied to your account.

 

blah blah

 

ref to finance & leasing Association' (who the hell are they)

 

I had no need for this insurance as the credit limit was only £400 and I only used it once in store to buy my pram as they gave me 10% off, I lived with my now husband and between us could have covered this no problems at the time and bearing in mind I'd ticked no on my MBNA form and that had a CL of £3500 I'm guessing you can see the bigger picture that I'm not really and insurance person although I understand this won't necessarily make a good arguement wink.gif

 

Any thoughts, letter back stating even if it was 'sold to me' over the phone (I have NO recolection of this however I had a 6 week old baby on 20th April) I had absolutely NO need for it?

 

thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I got a very similar letter from Santander and so have others.

Have a look at my thread as I was referred to FLA , which is the norm as they were not regulated before 2005 so FSA does not apply. By the way I don't really understand this issue of not being regulated!

 

However it does give Santander an excuse to pass the buck.

 

I am just a little ahead of you , so have a read of my thread. Sorry I don't know how to insert a link!

 

Regards

W

Link to post
Share on other sites

well obv they will say that

what did you send them?

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

  • 2 weeks later...

the same letter I had sent to MBNA and Capital One who upheld. I've emailed them back stating I don't accept their decision and they need to send me my original agreement (which I know I didn't tick, I never did, never will do) and a transcript of this 'supposed' telephone conversation. I got an email back saying it had been passed to the relevant person, so i'm also wondering who the heck dealt with it in the first place:???:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...