Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Barclaycard PPI Claim


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4526 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 Guys,

I have just received a response to my Claim on missold PPI against a Credit card I took out Years ago. The letter states that they are unable to uphold my complaint as they have identified that my application was submitted by post and that the process required me to select a specified type of cover.

 

Looking for advise on how to respond. Should I go down the SAR route first and then the FOS

 

Should I inform them that I am contacting the FOS?. As I took out the agreement when I was a mere teenager (18 years ago) they have advised that I positively checked the box in my postal application however they have not provided me with any evidence to confirm this and my memory will not go that far back ;-).

 

In addition to this they have also informed me that the date of sale was before Barclays became signatories to the General Insurance Statndards council code of practice. I saw on another thread that the previous codes of practice would be covered under the FOS. Is this true?. I tried ringing today but their phones seemed to be down, I will try again tomorrow.

 

Thanks for this great forum. It's certainly an eye opener to the big bad world of financial institutions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi IMS,

I sent them a Letter of intent in relation to claiming PPI. In the letter i set out my reasons for claiming i'e Not informed that the Policy was Optional, I Realized that I may have had alternative cover, Not given the correct info when the policy was sold and that it was not sold in my best interest.

 

I had not set out any Figures but in the letter I had stated that I would expect the statutory 8% interest on my claim. I guess that may have been to my detriment assuming that they would do this?. I wouldn't even know where to start given that the card was taken out and used frequently since 1994 \ 1995. I stopped the PPI in 2010 when all of the hype about it was starting to circulate the media, If only then I had realized options I may be in a different position today. But Hindsights a wonderful thing.

 

Any way, 2/3 weeks later I received a letter saying that they were looking into my claim and asked me to fill out the FOS Questionnaire, all of which I duly did. They responded and said I would have a reply and decision by a certain date which give or take a couple of days they did adhere to.

 

However, Like you say thay have stated that this communication " As a result we are not able to uphold your complaint" should be viewed as their final response in relation to this matter and then they go onto inform me that as the date of sale was before Barclays became signatories to the GISCCP my complaint would not be elegible for referral to the FOS.

 

Is this truly a std response and is it worth pursuing further?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Yes it is a standard at the moment from Barclays....an attempt to confuse and confound.

 

If you have all of your statements you can use the fos redress spreadsheet in the PPI stickies to work out what you should expect back.....see here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?330996-Latest-Spreadsheets-PPI-Claims-and-Charges-Claims-Dec-2011

 

Send copies of all your correspondence in the matter to fos and let them know what Barclays are up to by telling people they cannot go to fos.

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again. Then I guess I need to follow thru with the SAR with Barclaycard 1st since I don't have all Statements and can only find very little recent ones from 2007\2008. Not all though. Once I receive those then I can use the redress spreadsheets and follow thru with the FOS. Should I state my intentions to Barclaycard when responding to this letter?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...