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

Halifax Rejected claim - what next


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4238 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

This weekend I’ve received a letter from Halifax rejecting a PPI miss-selling claim and I’d appreciate any guidance that can be offered over possible next steps

 

 

Background to my claim is as follows

  • Personal Loan taken out 12/13 years ago. I know PPI had been applied
  • A SAR to Halifax returned the original agreement only, with no other data/information
  • Submitted the claim, using the FOS Questionnaire and the CAG Single premium PPI spreadsheet

 

My claim essentially stated that (at the time of the sale)

  • Benefits & exclusions were not fully explained
  • Not told it was optional
  • Not told it could be cancelled
  • Not told I could have sought cover elsewhere
  • Not asked about my health or employer benefits
  • Led to believe that PPI would enhance a successful loan application and was pressured to take out the policy to meet sales targets

The reasons for rejection basically falls into a number of categories

 

  • Benefits and exclusions were defined in a policy booklet sent to me at the time of the application
  • I had 30 days to cancel and the agreement and policy booklet defined all of the costs
  • Sales techniques used at the time meant that I wasn’t pressured
  • No alternative products were available at that time
  • Identification of particular needs would only have been taken where it was practical to do so
  • Halifax are satisfied that there was no miss-selling

Finally the letter advises I have the option to submit additional information, or otherwise I can take the complaint to FOS

 

Given all of the above, it appears to me that Halifax are not rejecting the claim based on any hard evidence, but more over “what would have happened at that time”, therefore my interpretation of this is that it becomes a dispute over my word against theirs and therefore it will difficult to force a change in this viewpoint.

 

Is there any guidance that can be offered about where I can go with this, or am I at the end of the road? I’ve got initial views, but would welcome any alternative views before I make any further decisions on this

 

TIA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this, I'll try and get my head round all the points in the Appendix

 

I have read other threads on here about the relevance of the 30 day rule, which based on my limited knowledge is difficult to argue against. What is the recommendation to counter this point?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Matters not that they say you had 30 days to cancel a PPI policy.

 

It has only just come to light through media attention and the other reasons you have given that it was mis-sold so any alleged cancellation terms are out of the window.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question

 

In the rejection letter, from Halifax, they state:

 

It should be noted that prior to 2005 the sale of PPI was not regulated by the Financial Services Authority. However we are members of The Association of British Insurers which expects its members to conduct business with the utmost faith and integrity.

 

Given that I’m pursuing a claim that relates to a PL taken out on 1999, does this have any real relevance or is it just smokescreen?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just to pick up where I left off with this

 

Finally got round to reading the FSA Handbook and the Appendix, loads of useful stuff in there, so thanks for the tip

 

Basically I've gone back to Halifax, saying that my understanding is that they

 

· Should not rely solely on the detail within the policy’s terms and conditions. Which they are

· Should not reject my claim based on the fact that I signed documentation. Which they are

· Should not reject my claim because I failed to exercise a right to cancel. Which they are

· Should not give more weight to general evidence of selling practices at that time. Which they are

 

Sent this off today (registered of course). Don't know where it will get me, but I'm trying to get my ducks in a row for taking this to FOS

 

Are Halifax under any obligation to respond to my follow up letter within a given period of time?

 

TIA

 

T

Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally you would put in a time frame so it is really a matter of waiting a reasonable time before sending a reminder. If it were me, 14 days would be when I chase it up.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Have you made any progress with this?

 

Despite the recommendation of IMS to chase this after 2 weeks, I did not do so until last week. I called them last week, essentially to ask when I can expect a response to my rejection (of their rejection) and to remind them that I am expecting an answer. I was told that my case had only recently been passed on for a more detailed review. Not bad being as they had then had my letter for 7 weeks..... Ultimately, I'm in no rush to close this quickly, so I'm reasonably comfortable that they are (supposedly) looking at it again

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...