Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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

hubby's PPI claim on Lloyds loan - **WON**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3381 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

Diary of events so far:-

CCA request sent August last year to DCA who didn't comply so I put account into dispute.

Several DCS's have tried to collect but have dealt with them all because of non compliance, passing disputed debt on etc...

 

SAR request sent to Lloyds June this year.

incomplete SAR received awhile ago, so letter sent for non compliance.

CCA did arrive at some point as a result of SAR.

Sent in claim using the FOS questionaire and spreadsheet.

 

Reasons for claim for misselling -

  • Hubby self employed for 20+ years
  • PPI was a condition of the loan
  • Not informed that PPI was optional
  • Not told it was single premium added to loan and would attract interest
  • Features, exclusions and terms of cancellation were not discussed
  • Hubby did not tick the PPI box, it was filled in by a bank employee

 

letter received today " After considering the evidence and documentation available to me, I have not found sufficeint evidence to agree with your allegations that your PPI was mis-sold. I am unable to uphold your complaint

 

I'm absolutely dumbfounded ! there cannot be a more sure fire case for misselling than this, just on self employment issue alone.

Any thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they give reasons and details of how they conducted their investigation?

 

You need to challenge them and ask them why they feel that his self-employed status qualified him for the cover.

 

Also go through any other points and ask the "why" questions to get them to put their decision making process in writing to you.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ims, thanks for dropping in :)

 

Summarised:-

  • Pre existing medical conditions - you were not suffering any pre-existing that would affect the full use of your PPI ( not even a issue )
  • Value for money - we have calculated that the total cost of policy was less than maximum benefits ( ? what benefits - he's self employed )
  • Refinanced or Repaid loans -....We have concluded that it was not inapropriate to have recommended a single premium (of course it was inappropriate )
  • Exclusions - You were affected to some extent by the unemployment limitations, however the extent of the affect meant that there was no impact on suitability because of your identified needs ( no needs were ever identified !!!! )

 

Absolutely this will be challenged all the way- I'm just fuming at the moment because they are liars and cheats - really funny how they agree to uphold on 1 of my other claims that was the exact same argument as this 1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep.... I think I'm going to enjoy this !

Just realised I'm getting a bit confused with my paperwork. CCA has not been received for this. this is a loan that has been payed in full. All the DCA action as in post # 1 relates to hubby's credit card that I am also claiming for.(thread not started yet )

However,

another quote from letter "I can verify that the adviser had no alternative policies to consider or offer to you. I am also aware that only where it was pratical to do so we would have taken steps to identify your needs."

Also "When you purchased the policy you were provided with a CCA. This contained the coast of PPI and showed the total amount of interest ....

 

I think they are trying to rely on pre 2005 PPI not regulated, which is why they haven't supplied the CCA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course while the adviser didn't have any other Lloyds policies to offer doesn't mean that is the end of it. If they are going through a needs assessment and talking to you about the policy then they should perhaps have said that a similar policy could have been obtained elsewhere at possibly lesser cost.

 

However, that doesn't really matter because of the self employed status.

 

What really stands out for me is the admission that they recommended the policy to s elf employed person knowing that it was pretty much useless to your hubby.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed :)

I'll compose a letter tomorrow, and keep you posted :)

Thanks ims - and damn it, I've mentioned the hubby so now you know I'm not available and my marriage proposals are just a tease.... lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
Congrats - another victory against Lloyds.

 

Some details would be useful to others reclaiming.

 

I will post more details soon ( dealing with various ailments at the moment ) but I basically followed the wonderful advice given here at CAG. I have a few threads going concerning various different claims so will try to update them all soon :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...