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

RBS Loanguard on overdraught


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4219 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

Thanks IMS, do you think the wording is OK or a little heavy?

 

Another thing that may go in my favour with the FOS is that I have tried to give the bank a chance to rectify the situation. I was really annoyed earlier when the number given to me by the PPI dept for the charges dept took me to a recording about the FSA ruling on bank charges... try it 0845 3030 442

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I am still getting no where with the charges part of this, nobody at the PPI dept has taken any notice and the only time I get any info is when I call them. They had my letter explaining I want the charges back that were a result of PPI in early Feb.

 

Does anybody have any contact details for someone within RBS who might listen to me before I take this further? I have seen another post on the RBS forum at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?338589-RBS-SAR-Request with the contact details of three ladies in Risk \ UK Retail, would it be worth mailing them.

 

I need to make them aware of how serious I am about this, I do not intend to let the matter drop just because they are ignoring me. If it were the other way round I would have had countless letters from debt collectors by now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were me I'd do one final letter before passing it to fos.

 

Tell them that you have noted their failure to communicate with you and that fos will no doubt be interested that they are failing in their responsibility to treat PPI claims properly and in accordance with the principles laid down by the FSA.

 

Give them 14 days to provide a response and if they still fail then pass the whole thing to fos to deal with but be prepared for a wait.

 

The other thing you can consider is to accept the PPI part and deal with the charges claim separately as mentioned previously. You could then sue in court for the charges but you would need to do some work to show that the charges were as a direct result of the PPI.

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks IMS... again. I will be calling them again in the morning but with the staff only reading a screen I never get anywhere.

 

Proving the charges were a direct result of PPI is surely clear cut. For instance, when the first payment was applied to the account, say of £50 and I was less than that over my limit but charged for a DD then it was a direct result. The following month another £50 was applied, making £100 PPI plus the first charge in total but again not over the limit by that ammont but still charged for something else... and so the amount rolls on.

 

My problem with sending another letter is that they seem to ignore anything related to charges as a result of PPI hoping that I will accept and go away. I have had chats with the FOS and they have stated they will take the charges claim on and that it should be straight forward but I have also seen a post on here where the FOS turned down a similar case as he should have know PPI was applied to the account, I Will try and find it and put a link on here.

 

I cannot help but wonder why the RBS are stalling, is it the current accounts moving to Santander so it becomes their problem or hoping it goes on for six months and then I cannot pass it to the FOS?

 

If I get no suitable response I think I will take this straight to court but I was hoping i could contact someone in the bank who might see sense and stop it getting that far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I wouldn't phone purely because I wouldn't want the standard fob off again.

 

I don't know how clear cut proving the charges is as I don't have access to your account :lol:

 

What I am saying is that I suggest you do some spreadsheet work to show what the behaviour of the account would have been had the PPI not been applied and would thos charges have arisen.

 

If fos take on the charges bit and find against you then you can still go to court.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Royal Bank of Scotland Loanguard PPI successI first sent them (17/07/12) the PPI Consumer Questionnaire, which included my current account number. The loanguard doesn’t have a number it is just applied to the account.They promptly sent bank the standard letter saying they couldn’t help because they didn’t have the loanguard number.So I responded on the 16/08/12 with the following letter:Thank you for your letter of 2nd August 2012.The loanguard cover is for my OVERDRAFT, and as such the number that refers to this, is my account number as provided previously, and you already know! You have enough details to progress my complaint immediately.I have been a customer of your bank since around 1991, please treat me as such!I believe that you have mis-sold this Loanguard PPI on the grounds that:You did not offer me the choice of having the cover or not. It was a condition of receiving the overdraft. I have not received any paperwork or even a policy, explaining the cover and how to claim.I have never had or been offered a review about the Loanguard, or any enquiry by yourselves if the Loanguard cover is still relevant and applicable to my circumstances. In some of my previous jobs I would have received sick pay, or benefits from my employer in the event of you having to take time off work, so making the policy an unnecessary cost for me.The RBS should have provided me with a statement illustrating the account charges and the loanguard part of the charges, rather than lumping it in under the title “20JUL A/C ??????????”. In every other situation where I am paying for something I expect to see a statement from time to time.They responded, on 19/09/12, with the following letter:19 September 2012 Dear Mr MaggsYour Payment Protection Insurance Policy in association with The Royal Bank of Scotland Overdraft Policy Number You will be pleased to know that we have now finished our review into the concerns that you raised about your Payment Protection Insurance Policy. Your concerns are important to us. In the circumstances, and given the amount of time that has passed since you made your complaint, as a gesture of goodwill and without any admission of liability, the Bank is prepared to make you the offer detailed below. Our offer We are willing to make you an offer of £7,122.99. For more information as to how this figure has been determined, please see the enclosed Offer form. Our offer is based on the information available to us regarding your policy. If there are any other factors you think we should have taken into account please let us know. interest will be paid gross or net of the lower rate of Income Tax depending on your tax position.This money will be automatically credited to your current account. If however you no longer have an open current account with The Royal Bank of Scotland Group, we will send you a cheque. As you have made a complaint about the way in which the policy was sold to you, please be aware if the Payment Protection Insurance Policy is still active this will be cancelled once you have accepted this offer. This will result in you no longer being eligible for the benefits provided by the policy. So a very nice day that day .

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...