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

Former Natwest employee reveals how staff had to hit targets in PPI mis selling racket


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4206 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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012...sell-insurance Edited by MARTIN3030

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

links dead

 

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

Yes works for me.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This reminds me EXACTLY of how my appointment at my local Natwest branch went when I was missold PPI... shame on the management putting such pressure on their staff.

thegfb vs Natwest PPI - WON - £5.5k refunded October 2011 :-D

thegfb vs Sainsburys Bank PPI - referred to FOS 15/09/2011, WON - £2.7k refunded February 2013 :wink:

thegfb vs Capital One PPI - Complaint sent September 2012, dragging their heels :roll:

ongoing...

------------------------------------------------

Thanks for all your advice so far :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been doing battle with NatWest for almost 4 years trying to get them to admit the mis-selling of insurance.

I went to the Ombudsman to no avail, his judgment on my case was only a few months before the PPI turnabout.

The criteria mentioned about PPI, such as: it was forced on you as a condition of getting a loan, you didn't want it,

didn't need it, being unable to compare it with other companies etc - all applied to my circumstances.

 

We had a meeting with the 'bank manager' to discuss the level of borrowing our company had with them and he said that part of the overdraft should be consolidated in to a loan. He said that NatWest insisted we had to have insurance cover and that a colleague from their 'NatWest Life' (now Aviva) would contact me direct to arrange this.

 

We complained bitterly that we didn't want even more expense - especially since they had any lending totally covered, including the deeds to our house!! To no avail - he said we had to have it! We were then contacted and their rep encouraged us to include critical illness in the policy which would cover either life of the 2 directors involved in the company (i.e. my husband and me). This was called a LEVEL TERM ASSURANCE. If any claim was made, the proceeds would be paid only to the business to offset any borrowing. (Heads NatWest wins, Tails, you lose!) Over the 10 year period of the policy (2000 - 2010) we paid £10K!

 

In the last few weeks, they now say that this isn't the same as PPI and that the only recourse I have would be to take them to Court. I can't go back to the Ombudsman, because he has 'ruled' and any appeal wouldn't be considered by other Ombudsmen. Has anyone experienced the same anything similar? Any advice would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't PPI...it is what is known as a KeyMan insurance (amongst other things). This covered key personnel within the limited company.

 

Accordingly the PPI rules don't apply.

 

I would say that your only chance is in court.

  • Confused 1

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your advice. I've got correspondence to state that they have no record of it being

a requirement in respect of the loan, so my contention is, why were we forced to have it? (This

is were it is akin to the PPI ruling). Ims, do you have any pointers/or case law to direct me to in

order to prepare my challenge in the small claims court? Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...