Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Participants can get £50 - but must permanently consent to the retailer using their personal data.View the full article
    • Documents arrived today dated 27th March.  This is a cc taken out a long time ago (2008) and they don't seem to have been able to provide a copy of a CCA agreement, just reams of print outs of lines of texts from old bank statements, default notices etc.   
    • Documents finally arrived today from PRA group.  New day have sent me lots of paperwork, copies of default letters and statements, print out of what looks like a CCA that would have been completed on online, IP address as signature.  This debt is not too old, so possible this is the true copy of agreement ?  Not sure what my defence would be beyond irresponsible lending. 
    • pers i wouldn't.. all you need to know is in the posts of that thread....that being section 127(3) of the CCA refers. if under a CCA return, the 'creditor' claims its a recon, it must not contain any details like a sig, tickbox, or typed name (whether you signed physically or by online tickbox) 1. those are not necessary in a recon, so why inc them? (faked??) 2, it cant thus be a recon!!, it must be a copy of the 'original' from the original creditor, not from a debt buyers filing cabinet. they shouldn't not be 'mixing' some original docs from the OC with crap from their filing cabinet, claiming its ALL a recon! because some of it is faked. just remember there are far more docs like NOA and a DN that are as equally important to a court claim of 'this debt is enforceable'. never rely solely upon the dodgy agreement argument.
  • 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 from The Funding Corporation


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4126 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

Dear All,

 

I need some advice from the experts in here please,

 

I took out the loan from The Funding Corporation for a vehicle in Nov-2006.

 

I cleared the account in May 2010.

 

I took the PPI, which was sold to me as a compulsory by car showroom advisor. (During my visit I wanted to buy another car for which I got declined and was told for this particular car that I had to take it else they will not be able to process the application)

 

The loan was provided to me by TFC, but PPI was provided by AXA even though both are on the same contract which I signed.

 

I recently contacted TFC and they replied that they have looked into my account and can confirm that they are the wrong respondents. They did not advised in the letter whom shall I contact.

 

My question in here,

 

Whom shall I contact? TFC, AXA or shall I go to Ombudsman Service.

 

 

Many Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you had a try with the dealer who sold it?

 

Are they still in business do you know?

 

You could also try using S56 Consumer Credit Act with TFC and see if that does any good.

 

56 Antecedent negotiations.

 

(1)In this Act “antecedent negotiations ” means any negotiations with the debtor or hirer—

(a)conducted by the creditor or owner in relation to the making of any regulated agreement, or

(b)conducted by a credit-broker in relation to goods sold or proposed to be sold by the credit-broker to the creditor before forming the subject-matter of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(a), or

©conducted by the supplier in relation to a transaction financed or proposed to be financed by a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(b) or ©,and “negotiator ” means the person by whom negotiations are so conducted with the debtor or hirer.

(2)Negotiations with the debtor in a case falling within subsection (1)(b) or © shall be deemed to be conducted by the negotiator in the capacity of agent of the creditor as well as in his actual capacity.

(3)An agreement is void if, and to the extent that, it purports in relation to an actual or prospective regulated agreement—

(a)to provide that a person acting as, or on behalf of, a negotiator is to be treated as the agent of the debtor or hirer, or

(b)to relieve a person from liability for acts or omissions of any person acting as, or on behalf of, a negotiator.

(4)For the purposes of this Act, antecedent negotiations shall be taken to begin when the negotiator and the debtor or hirer first enter into communication (including communication by advertisement), and to include any representations made by the negotiator to the debtor or hirer and any other dealings between them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you paid TFC they are your target.

 

how did you 'complain'

 

did you use the FOS Customer Questionaire & a Spreadsheet?

 

or just a speculative 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

Have you had a try with the dealer who sold it?

 

Are they still in business do you know?

 

You could also try using S56 Consumer Credit Act with TFC and see if that does any good.

 

56 Antecedent negotiations.

 

(1)In this Act “antecedent negotiations ” means any negotiations with the debtor or hirer—

(a)conducted by the creditor or owner in relation to the making of any regulated agreement, or

(b)conducted by a credit-broker in relation to goods sold or proposed to be sold by the credit-broker to the creditor before forming the subject-matter of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(a), or

©conducted by the supplier in relation to a transaction financed or proposed to be financed by a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(b) or ©,and “negotiator ” means the person by whom negotiations are so conducted with the debtor or hirer.

(2)Negotiations with the debtor in a case falling within subsection (1)(b) or © shall be deemed to be conducted by the negotiator in the capacity of agent of the creditor as well as in his actual capacity.

(3)An agreement is void if, and to the extent that, it purports in relation to an actual or prospective regulated agreement—

(a)to provide that a person acting as, or on behalf of, a negotiator is to be treated as the agent of the debtor or hirer, or

(b)to relieve a person from liability for acts or omissions of any person acting as, or on behalf of, a negotiator.

(4)For the purposes of this Act, antecedent negotiations shall be taken to begin when the negotiator and the debtor or hirer first enter into communication (including communication by advertisement), and to include any representations made by the negotiator to the debtor or hirer and any other dealings between them.

 

Hi,

 

Thanks for the reply,

 

I just googled it and they went into liquidation some time ago.

 

Can I contact ombudsman service? or shall I write another letter based on above?

 

Please advise.

 

Many Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you paid TFC they are your target.

 

how did you 'complain'

 

 

 

did you use the FOS Customer Questionaire & a Spreadsheet?

 

or just a speculative letter?

 

dx

 

 

Hi,

 

I filled out Ombudsman questionaire along with a letter which I downloaded from The Guardian Website.

I also included the copy of agreement and copy of policy cover.

 

TFC replied with two lines in Letter,

 

 

"Thank you for your letter dated 27 November 2012. Having reviewed the account I confirm we are the wrong respondents in this case as we did not sell you the Payment Protection Insurance.

 

Yours Sincerely"

 

 

Please advise what to do next?:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

write back to TFC regarding sec 56

 

the fos also take a very dim view of such a short one letter [in this case] one LINE brush off!!

 

i'm sure we've had successes with TFC already

 

dx

 

 

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

Dear customer

We are sorry to hear you feel you have been mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance (PPI). As you have stated, The Funding Corporation has written to you advising they are the wrong respondents. This means that whilst your car finance payments were made to The Funding Corporation, the PPI was sold by the dealership where you bought your vehicle.

As the dealership would have been independently regulated by the FSA in order to sell this product, they are liable for the sale and subsequently any redress you may be due as a result of your complaint. If they are no longer trading you can contact the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) on 0800 678 1100 who may be able to help with your complaint.

If you wish to discuss this further please contact our Customer Services Department on 0845 271 7824. We hope this information is useful to you.

Kind regards

The Funding Corporation

Edited by TFC Customer Relations
Formatting issue

The Funding Corporation Limited. Registered in England number 44055624. Registered office address: IM House, South Drive, Coleshill, West Midlands B46 1DF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i am not totally happy with any company simply writing off any PPI complaint with a blunt letter & dismissing the claim.

 

Under Section 56 of the Consumer Credit Agreement Rules, a Company is resposible for the actions of ant/all of its agents.

 

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

This is a real gray area, is it the broker, the lender or the underwriter. All parties stating they are not responsible. This gives the claimant a real hurdle to climb. Could do with a knowledgeable thread on how to tackle these claims.

 

Intend

Link to post
Share on other sites

actually it not a gray area

 

its just being allowed to be so.

 

section 56 CLEARLY states that the LENDER iS responsible for ALL the agents in the 'chain'.

 

sadly far too many are being allowed to GET AWAY with shirking THEIR responsibility to refund the Mis-sale.

 

if the LENDER has to then go after the broker/underwriter, thats THEIR problen. NOT the punters.

 

after all, the LENDER takes your MONEY, and must have/are/had PAID whomever mis-sold the PPI.

 

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

56 Antecedent negotiations.

 

(1)In this Act “antecedent negotiations ” means any negotiations with the debtor or hirer—

(a)conducted by the creditor or owner in relation to the making of any regulated agreement, or

(b)conducted by a credit-broker in relation to goods sold or proposed to be sold by the credit-broker to the creditor before forming the subject-matter of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(a), or

©conducted by the supplier in relation to a transaction financed or proposed to be financed by a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(b) or ©,and “negotiator ” means the person by whom negotiations are so conducted with the debtor or hirer.

(2)Negotiations with the debtor in a case falling within subsection (1)(b) or © shall be deemed to be conducted by the negotiator in the capacity of agent of the creditor as well as in his actual capacity.

(3)An agreement is void if, and to the extent that, it purports in relation to an actual or prospective regulated agreement—

(a)to provide that a person acting as, or on behalf of, a negotiator is to be treated as the agent of the debtor or hirer, or

(b)to relieve a person from liability for acts or omissions of any person acting as, or on behalf of, a negotiator.

(4)For the purposes of this Act, antecedent negotiations shall be taken to begin when the negotiator and the debtor or hirer first enter into communication (including communication by advertisement), and to include any representations made by the negotiator to the debtor or hirer and any other dealings between them.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/56

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...