Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 162 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

Barclayshark and Coffee: PPI Complaint Not upheld - they claim application taken out online!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4495 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

So long story short, SAR'd these people back in September 2011 - received it in dribs and drabs. After totting up and doing the math on charges and PPI, sent in my claim and FOS questionnaire for PPI on both Master and Visa accounts.

 

Have now had letters back from them saying that:

 

my application for PPI was submitted online; and

 

In addition, we have conducted a review of the documentation you viewed during the sale. We are satisfied that the documentation presented accurately described the scope of the policy, and was sufficien to provide you with all the information necessary to inform you of the terms and conditions of the policy

 

Now then, my cards were taken out in 1996 and back then I never had access to the internet! What I would like to know is when did Barclaycard start taking applications online?

 

Now back in 1996, you were automatically opted in and were no given a choice and as I never received any documentation for these policies how would I have been given an opportunity to decline/cancel?

 

I have my suspicions that they are confusing the PPI with the accidental death cover which is something totally different!

 

Nevertheless though, if as they claim that they have "identified that PPI was taken out online and that I "viewed the documentation" then why was that information not included in my SAR!? :-x

 

Has anyone else been in this situation?:?: They are getting on my last nerve now! :mad2:

 

Coffee

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are confident they are lying then carry on with your claim and wait for them to buckle!!

 

On this journey of taking these "people" down, I am learning which battles I can win! Hell yes G! I have their privates in a vice grip! :wink: Was just interested to know if any other normal folks had encountered the same problemo!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...