Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 160 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
  • Recommended Topics

PPI claim back on 2 Lloyds credit cards


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4123 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

Sent in the first 2 letters asking very nicely for my PPI back on 2 credit cards

and received the usual response (word for word verbatim on both replies although from different people!) so sent the following;

 

Dear Mr Hogg

 

Thank you for your letter of 29th August, 2012.

 

I write to inform you that I am not satisfied with the response you have provided to my initial complaint.

 

I re-assert that I was mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) taken out on the above named credit card account, by your organisation.

 

I have been a customer with Lloyds TSB for over 25 years and am very disappointed at the way I am being treated over this

– rest assured I will now be taking my banking affairs elsewhere.

 

You write that the sale was made on a non-contact basis.

 

I refute this as I applied for the card in person, in branch but at no time was I given any information regarding the PPI policy and indeed,

was actually led to believe by your sales representative that the PPI was necessary for acceptance of the credit card.

 

I did not receive at the time or after, any documentation regarding the PPI at all.

 

As you should be fully aware, because I applied for the credit card in branch,

if I had indeed acquiesced to the PPI a “needs assessment” document would have been completed by your sales rep to indeed assure that the policy was “fit for purpose”

– I would like to see a copy of this document.

 

I will address your points in order;

 

Information and Disclosure

 

“I can verify that there were no alternative policies to available at the time of sale.”

 

There were no alternative policies available from your company perhaps but your adviser also did not inform me

that I could have purchased the PPI cover elsewhere at a much more competitive rate.

I now require copies of the notes that your sales person would have made at the point of sale.

 

I would also like proof that there were indeed no alternative policies available at the time as my information will show otherwise.

 

I would also like you to provide details of Lloyds requirement to let me know that cheaper policies would have been available elsewhere.

 

 

“When considering the policy booklet I can conclude that we did supply you with sufficient information to ensure you could make an informed decision as to whether the policy met your personal requirements.”

 

What policy booklet?

I did not then and have never since, received one or even caught sight of one!

At no point did I receive any such information, either by letter, document or telephone call.

 

I affirm once again that at no time was I asked for details of anything about the PPI cover and was certainly not supplied with any documentation pertaining to such.

 

I am also aware that my mental health issue will –and has – precluded me from EVER claiming on a PPI policy.

I repeat, I wish to see a copy of the needs assessment document completed at the time.

 

Consent to cover

 

“The consumer credit agreement shows that we required additional consent in the form of a tick box and a signature to confirm that you wanted a PPI policy to be added to your credit card.”

 

If, as you stated in your letter, this sale was made on a non contact basis

how could I have ticked a box and signed a form?

 

I require proof of this document and proof also that I was not deceived by your sale adviser at the time.

Prove to me beyond a doubt that I was not told by your adviser that I had to have this policy in order to gain the card.

I feel that the sale was driven by a commission based bonus structure and therefore would not have been sold in my best interests.

 

“It can therefore be concluded that you did knowingly consent to the addition of a PPI policy to your credit card.”

 

I did not knowingly consent to it

– I was given no choice in the matter!

 

If the exclusions on the policy had been made known to me there is no way I would have ever agreed to it anyway

– whether I had gotten the card or not! I believe this was a commission based sale that was forced on me by your sales adviser.

 

 

To reiterate;

 

It was not explained to me at any time that there were exclusions within this policy that would apply to me and make me unable to claim.

 

It was also not explained to me that similar or better insurance cover for this credit card could be bought elsewhere at a much more competitive rate.

 

My personal circumstances were not questioned at any time during this credit card application

and my belief was that if I did not also take out the PPI at the same time as applying for the card, then my card application would be refused.

 

I was not asked if I had insurance cover elsewhere which would cover this loan.

 

The PPI was never explained to me at all;

in fact I have never received any policy or terms and conditions regarding this policy.

 

At the time of this application I was in full-time employment with no risk of redundancy,

a fully paid salary for 6 months of sickness, had both generous life insurance and critical illness insurance policies.

 

I believe insurance contracts are contracts uberrimae fidei (contracts of the utmost good faith) which imposes on you a

“duty of disclosure of all material facts because one party is in a strong position to know the truth.”

 

I believe you should have made it clear to me that the policy generated large profits for you and substantial bonuses for the sales advisers who sold it to unsuspecting customers.

 

You failed to do this.

 

I believe that you have also therefore failed in your duty of disclosure.

 

 

Your failure to disclose is misrepresentation at common law.

 

Insurers are under an obligation to ensure that the policy they are selling is appropriate to that customer and clearly you have not fulfilled this requirement.

 

I reposed absolute trust in your ability as a financial institution to provide a reasonable level of care

and skill in ensuring that my best interests were met when taking out a credit card with your organisation.

This has not been the case and I am extremely shocked and disappointed.

 

If you cannot provide copies of the documentation requested by myself

then I insist you produce evidence of destruction of the documents certified by a registered data controller within your organisation as is required under the Civil Evidence Act 1995.

 

As you will no doubt be aware, this act requires banks and other institutions to keep auditable records on documentation they hold and includes certification of destruction.

 

I hope that you will enter into a sincere dialogue with me about this matter and I am writing this letter to you on the assumption that you will prefer to do this than merely respond with standard letters and leaflets. I will give you 14 days to reply to me.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Received the following today - again identical letters this time from the same person but for the two different credit cards!

 

 

Any advice would be appreciated.

"Never annoy a redhead - especially when she's a member of CAG!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

usual case here

 

it is pure 'speculation' that the PPI was sold properly, has is assuming the correct proceedures took place

 

he was NOT THERE.

 

the advisor obv got commission for selling it.

 

dx

  • Confused 1

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

Many, many thanks for your reply dx - was feeling slightly out on a limb here and unsure of next step. Have composed what I consider to be a pretty strong reply - will post it as a pdf at first opportunity.

 

Edit; if anybody can use any/all parts of my letter please feel free, I tacked it together from advice on here myself. :-)

"Never annoy a redhead - especially when she's a member of CAG!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

as that was their first reply.

 

i would just keep the letter very simple and short.

 

how did you claim, via 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

as that was their first reply.

 

i would just keep the letter very simple and short.

 

how did you claim, via FOS CQ?

 

 

 

dx

 

 

I sent in a claim request

and they took my details over the phone

and sent me a letter to make sure they had the information correct.

 

That's when the first denial came

and I replied with the letter in the first post of this thread.

 

The pdf in the first post of this thread is their second refusal to pay out.

"Never annoy a redhead - especially when she's a member of CAG!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Hi there, I am new to this site, and been following your progress with interest as my case is identical to yours. Have you had a response yet from Lloyds TSB following your last letter to them? Many thanks.

 

 

as the user has not been back since mid oct

 

i'd start your own thread

 

see below

 

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...