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
      • 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 and burden of proof


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4170 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 have a general query concerning a PPI claim that I have submitted and I'm looking for some advice.

 

I had a claim with MBNA from a loan 10 years ago that went staright through in about 4 weeks.

I received the cheque and that was it.

I did have the original paperwork, though.

Thought it was easy.

 

Then I had my claim from LLoyds TSB denied.

 

This was from PPI added to a credit card.

I had not "demonstrated that there was a problem with the sale of the policy."

I was a bit confused.

The credit card ended within the past six years - 2007 - and the PPI was actually cancelled by myself in mid 2007 when I noticed it on the monthly statements.

I even had a letter from them warning me that I would be at risk if I continued with the cancellation as I would not be able to avail myself of the benefits of the policy etc etc.

 

I do not recall ever agreeing to the policy,

I was self-employed and probably could not have claimed on the policy,

and can not find any paperwork in relation to the policy.

This was the basis of my complaint.

 

I had asked LLoyds to provide me with the terms and conditions of the policy and a copy of my agreement

- whether by telephone transcript or application form.

 

I would assume that they should have all this because the policy was cancelled within the past six years.

They have provided me with nothing.

 

They seem to have placed the onus on me to proof it was miss-sold.

 

My question, at last:

 

Is the onus on LLoyds to show that the policy was suitable for me and not miss-sold,

or is the onus on me to show that it was miss-sold.

 

Surely if it's been in place within the past six years they should be highlighting where in the terms and conditions it shows I could claim, a copy of any agreement etc.

 

I have written back to state that unless they reconsider

I will send a SAR and request all the documentation that way.

 

And that if they do not provide it I will progress to the FOS and inform them of their failures to do so.

 

Would I have case with the FOS if I had to go down that rouete?:???:

 

Any pointers very much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically yes, you should send a SAR anyway.

 

Also they cannot just dismiss your claim in this way. If they have not provided the T&Cs etc then they cannot have any basis for their decision unless they can provide evidence.

 

If this escalates to fos then you should tell them that LTSB have frustrated the process in that they will not let you have any detailed information and that is an unfair practice and that you should be entitled to some extra compo for that.

 

LTSB are climbing the ladder of the those banks who refuse to treat their customers fairly, particularly in respect of PPI claims.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yea

 

wrong idea to ever send in a PPI claim without an SAR first

 

and to just send a letter

 

always best to use the FOS CQ

and a spreadsheet too.

 

Lloyds esp will eat anyone for breakfast that just sends a letter on a hope of gaining out of them

 

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

By the way, I did send the FOS questionnaire.

 

I did not want to send a spreadsheet because I was hoping if I did not enlighten them to how far my statements went back

that they might have gone back more than the six years with the premiums.

 

If I'd SAR'd them first and then just added up the premiums as far back as six years they could stop there.

 

I was calling their bluff in a way.

 

I believe they can go back more than six years if they wish.

 

If that makes sense...

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no time limit on PPI reclaims

 

where did you get that from?

 

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

Sorry, I've put I haven't put it across too well.

 

My account with them finished in 2007, the PPI was cancelled in August 2007.

 

If I SAR'd them and they would give me the info going back six years.

 

That would only leave about just over a years worth of premiums for me to claim on.

 

If I don't say whether or not I have statements going back prior than the six years

then they might well go back prior to the six years themselves...

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is nothing to stop you using an average of the PPI payments you do know back to the start of the policy.

 

thats on the fos website too.

 

indeed many members have succeeded using this method.

 

there is no rule that says they cant send back passed 6yrs

 

infact many members have gotten details back to the early 90's

 

you might already have the info.

 

dont forget your card payments will tell you some info too.

 

PPI was a % of every £100 outstanding bal.

 

so on a CC it is possible to gestimate if you know what you paid one month

 

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

  • 3 weeks later...

Just an update on the above.

 

LLoyds continued to claim the paperwork had been sent to me, though it never turned up.

 

Eventually, I emailed the CEO with my complaint, mentioned that they were frustrating the process

- as recommended by the site team

- and mentioned that I would report this to the FOS.

 

A week later I received a letter apologising for the delay, misunderstanding etc.

 

They mentioned that a cheque for £100 would be forthcoming within seven days for the inconvenience caused.

 

They had also contacted the department concerned with Subject Access Request and they would forward all information to me,

free of charge I'm presuming.

 

However, they stuck to their rejection of my claim.

 

They provided me with some T and C's.

 

They were undated so could really be from anytime.

And they highlighted a paragraph

'What is Covered' ...

If you are self employed you will be able to claim for unemployment benefit providing the unemployment is involuntary due to the financial insolvency of your business

and you have notified the Inland Revenue'

 

This is also mentioned under

'What is not Covered .

.. unemployment if you are self employed, unless you become unemployed due to the involuntary insolvency of your business

and you provide eveidence of notification to the Inland Revenue of cessation of trade

 

'Is this acceptable?

Is this a unfair term in the contract?

 

If not, then I can't see where I go from here.

 

They have failed to address the mis selling in that they have not provided the transcript of the sale of the PPI, cancellation rights etc.

 

They have merely stated that all proper procedure would have been adhered to

but provided no evidence that it was, even though the PPI was cancelled within the last six years and so they should still have the paperwork.

 

Any advice on how to proceed would be much appreciated.

 

On a final note,

I also have a claim with Capital One.

The 8 week period has lapsed.

The only communication I have had from them was an acknowledgement of the claim and a warning that it might take ten weeks, perhaps even longer.

 

I wrote back to tell them they had 8 weeks but they did not respond.

 

Will they get fined for not addressing the issue within the 8 weeks?

 

Shall I take it directly to the FOS,

now?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

nope

 

they can speculate all they like the correct proceedures MIGHT have taken place

 

they WERE NOT THERE!!

 

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...