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

LloydsTSB PPI - Single Premium


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4267 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

Hi - I am starting the claim process with LloydsTSB on a number of loan and cc accounts.

 

Two of the loans I had were taken out when I was postgrad student - 1st in 1998 and 2nd in 2003. LTSB have given me the details of both loans.

 

I wasn't able to access their professional studies loan option but they did give me the regular loans.

 

Both were sold in branch by advisers who were supposed to be knowledgeable about student finance.

My only income was a research council grant and from occasional teaching at the university which was irregular.

I have used this as my main complaint reason.

 

However, on both loans the ppi was added at the start and paid for with an additional loan, to be paid off with the general loan. I paid one DD.

 

Is this what is meant by single premium, or front-loaded, PPI? And, if it is, is this generally regarded as a credible reason to complain about mis-selling on its own merit?

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is definitely front-loaded single premium PPI, yes.

 

As for whether by itself it was missold, I am not sure. I'm preparing my own claim at the moment for the same type of policy from Lloyds and am trying to ascertain the same thing. Given that there are many people on this forum and others who have been rejected by Lloyds and given that - as far as I know - Lloyds' PPI on their loans was usually of this type, I can only assume that either:

 

1. These people worded their complaint wrongly and didn't put enough emphasis on the single premium aspect or

2. Lloyds doesn't consider single premium to constitute miss selling in itself or

3. Those folks had a different type of PPI.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a loan is a loan

99% were front loaded

 

std claim

FOS CQ + SOC + covering letter.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

You have been mis-sold due to the inflexible and expensive nature of the product.

 

There are two types of PPI.

The first type is the regular premium PPI.

This is where the cost of the insurance is just added to your monthly payments.

 

The second type is the single premium PPI.

This one adds the total cost of the insurance over the duration of the loan to the actual amount borrowed.

It is expensive because it attracts interest in the same way as the loan.

 

They don’t usually explain this to you, because if you would have known that you are going to pay that much, you probably would have declined the insurance cover.

 

Also they should have explained to you that you could go elsewhere for PPI at a cheaper rate.

 

So get claiming it back with the interest, you can go back further than the 6 years by using the Limitation Act 1980, section 32(a) (b) and ©...

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the main reason should be told you must have it

 

just fill out the fos cq

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...