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 
      • 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

IF Loan from 2004


dpick
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4194 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

IF loan from 2004

 

My wife is on holiday with her sister this week so being bored I was checking of all things my CRA files.

 

Checked the above loan entry on my file when checking balances over the term of the loan found that it would appear that charges had been added to the account as on some months the balance of the loan had risen by as much as £38. Now this was only a small loan £1500 but when looking at the total I believe they may have added PPI as the total is £2272.

 

So they have added £772 in total to the loan could be just interest or could be interest and PPI.

 

Have sent SAR to Haliprats to check this account, will start claim for charges and interest if they are charges and then a claim for PPI if PPI applied as type two insulin dependent diabetic PPI would not have been any use to me.

 

dpick

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Just to update this thread

 

I rang Halifax in July to enquire about this loan I just asked has PPI been applied they said yes I said type 2 diabetes so PPI miss-sold. She talked to someone off phone and came back to say we will send you forms to file a claim.

 

Forms arrived 2 weeks later filled them in and returned them to receive letter to say 8 weeks to investigate. I though here we go again.

 

To my delight I have received their final offer (have not had a first offer) of

£608

 

Calculated as follows

 

Refund of Premiums 266.31

Refund of Interest 69.01

Interest at 8% calculated up until 20 November 2012 204.57

Other Indirect losses 68.46

 

Total £608.35

 

 

I would say that in this case Halifax had fully followed FOS guidelines for PPI claims, I could be wrong but that money will give my wife a good bit extra for Christmas so will just take it.

 

 

dpick

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...