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

PPI newbie with oldie claims


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3890 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

  • 1 year later...

After an 18 month wait, FOS have finally ajudicated on my Lloyds credit card claim and not upheld it! I thought I had a pretty clear cut case as I was self employed during the lifetime of the card and I am sure that it was not made clear that the PPI was optional when I took out the card in the early 90s. Unfortunately, I do not have any documents relating to the original application and the Lloyds SAR only came back with stuff from 2000 onwards.

FOS says that I was eligible for the policy which I find hard to believe. I suspect that Lloyds do not have the policy details from early 90s and have sent FOS details of a more recent policy that does include self employed eligibility but it would be difficult to prove that this did not link to my PPI.

FOS also say that due to the length of time, they cannot be sure that the PPI was presented as optional so the onus is on me to prove it was not optional to back my claim.

 

I can appeal on the aujudicaion but I am not sure if it is worth it. I do not have any new evidence and I am not sure if there is anything more that I can say that will overturn the decision.

 

Has anybody got any ideas/comments on the next step or should I finally admit defeat on this one?

 

On a more positive note, following a recent loft clearout, I have now found documentation relating to PPI on my Lombard Direct Loans and Santander are now on the case. I also found some PPI documents on an old Lloyds business loan. This was typically knocked back by Lloyds with their standard rejection letter and has been passed to FOS - Based on the credit card experience, I am not very optimistic about a sucessful outcome when they get round to ajudication next year.

 

Brett

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were me I would escalate the matter to an ombudsman.

 

When doing so ask for them to provide details as to why they believed you were covered when in many instances the PPI was useless to the Self Employed.

 

Ask them on what basis they believe you were eligible.

 

Ask them if they relied on a copy policy sent to them by the lender and ask them how they are sure that any such poicy was the one applicable to you and not a later version.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...