Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Spiritual Alchemist
      MET CCTV PCN - Occupants Left Carpark - Appealed - Starbucks (closed) 346 SouthGate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY

      By Spiritual Alchemist · Posted

      The incident was 03rd March 2024 - and that was the only letter that I have received from MET 15th April 2024 The charge I paid was at the Stansted Airport exit gate (No real relevance now - I thought this charge was for that!!).   Here is the content of email to them (Yes I know I said I was the driver !!!!) as said above -  I thought this charge was for that!! "Stansted Airport" Dear “To whom it may concern” My name is ??  PCN:  ?? Veh Reg: Date of Incident: 03rd March 2024 I have just received a parking charge final reminder letter, dated 10th April 2024 - for an overstay.  This is the first to my knowledge of any overstay. I am aware that I am out of the 28 days, I don’t mean to be rude, this feels like it is a scam My movements on this day in question are, I pulled into what looked like a service station on my way to pick my daughter and family up from Stansted airport. The reason for me pulling into this area was to use a toilet, so I found Starbucks, and when into there, after the above, I then purchased a coffee. After which I then continued with my journey to pick my daughter up. (however after I sent this email I remember that Starbucks was closed so I then I walked over to Macdonalds) There was no signs about parking or any tickets machines to explains about the parking rules. Once at Stansted, I entered and then paid on exit.  So Im not show where I overstayed my welcome.. With gratitude    
    • lookinforinfo
      UKPC ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - vehicle on site during restricted no parking period - Rom Valley Retail Park, Romford, RM7 0AF

      By lookinforinfo · Posted

      Just to enlarge on Dave's great rundown of your case under Penalty. In the oft quoted case often seen on PCNs,  viz PE v Beavis while to Judges said there was a case for claiming that £100 was a penalty, this was overruled in this case because PE had a legitimate interest in keeping the car park free for other motorists which outweighed the penalty. Here there is no legitimate interest since the premises were closed. Therefore the charge is a penalty and the case should be thrown out for that reason alone.   The Appeals dept need informing about what and what isn't a valid PCN. Dummies. You should also mention that you were unable to pay by Iphone as there was no internet connection and there was a long  queue to pay on a very busy day . There was no facility for us to pay from the time of our arrival only the time from when we paid at the machine so we felt that was a bit of a scam since we were not parked until we paid. On top of that we had two children to load and unload in the car which should be taken into account since Consideration periods and Grace periods are minimum time. If you weren't the driver and PoFA isn't compliant you are off scot free since only the driver is liable and they are saying it was you. 
    • LilMissM
      StepChange DMP - Multiple Debts

      By LilMissM · Posted

      Thank you dx. I consider myself well and truly told :) x Thank you dx. I consider myself well and truly told :) x
    • unclebulgaria67
      Insurance payout advice

      By unclebulgaria67 · Posted

      Doubt the uneconomic write off would be registered, unless you agreed to accept write off settlement of the claim. It is just cosmetic damage. All that has happened, is that the car has been looked at and they realised the repair costs are going to exceed the value of the car. If the car is perfectly driveable with no upcoming normal work required to pass next MOT, your current Insurers will continue Insurance and you can accept an amount from third party Insurers to go towards you repairing the scratched bodywork.    
    • NewsBot
      Club owner had to explain English football to Winklevoss twins

      By NewsBot · Posted

      Peter McCormack says the huge investment by the twins will help Real Bedford build a new ground.View the full article

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

HSBC PPI Claim(s) advise

Stan**
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3801 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

Stan**

Stan**

Posted
Posted

Hi all,

 

After struggling for months to obtain amounts associated to six different PPI products with HSBC, I am after some advise.

 

The first thing is, do I treat each of these as individual claims, or can I combine as one claim for the total amount?

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ims21

ims21

Posted
Posted

Thread moved to the PPI forum.

 

Were these loans or credit cards?

 

For loans that were refinanced by another loan, you can treat it as one claim and put all loans on one fos questionnaire.

 

Some more detail on these six products would be useful.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stan**

Stan**

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Basically, HSBC have given me a big big run around for a number of months:

 

-I managed to obtain from them that there was a total of 6 PPI products on loans sold since 2001.

-From this I wrote several times requesting SAR, full transaction details of each account etc.

-They have failed to give an actual breakdown of each account

- But, I have just received a "summary", outlining the amount of PPI paid on the 6 loan products, they also returned my £10 fee!

 

Because of the lack of my own records, and information from HSBC themselves, I am unsure which of these have been refinanced etc. So really I should treat these as 6 separate claims?

 

Also, is there a limit in time that a claim can be made, e.g can a product from 2001 be claimed upon?

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ims21

ims21

Posted
Posted

Ok so they sent your £10 back.

 

What did they say in the letter they sent when they gave you your £10 back?

 

Did your SAR request ALL data they held on you?

 

If you are unsure as to whether they have been refinanced then your only option is to start by treating them as separate claims.

 

There is no time limit as such for PPI claims.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stan**

Stan**

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks for your reply!

 

Apparently- "" the loan agreements and PPI related documentation are not held electronically or in a relevant manual filing system i.e in files referenced with my name or account details, and is therefore outside of the scope of data protection act 1998. ""

 

Not sure how much to read into that. I mean, for each account I have:

 

"PPI ammounting £xxx was added to the loan of £xxxx on xx/xx/xxxx. The loan term was xx months with an APR of x.x%.Please note that £xxx of PPi was refunded when the product was cancelled on xx/xx/xxxx".

 

So I have a summary of total PPI paid for each account, do I need anything else? I cant see that I do in terms of financial figures?

Link to post
Share on other sites
ims21

ims21

Posted
Posted

OK so the best you can do is complete a fos consumer questionnaire for each loan and submit them with a brief covering letter.

 

If you don't have a record of the payments actually made on the loans then you won't be able to work out what the refund should be so you will be taking their word for it if and when they make an offer.

 

The fos consumer questionnaire can be downloaded from here

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi.html

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stan**

Stan**

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi,

 

Would the refund not be based on the overall figure they have supplied, i.e the total PPI paid per loan? But yes, I am taking their word that this is what was actually paid.

 

Is it correct/true that they wont have copies of all transactions? If so, how the hell did they come up with the figures they have sent me?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stan**

Stan**

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Ok, to clarify my position and understanding (based on recent forum reading):

 

1) I have six PPI products based on personal loans

2) For each product I have a total amount of PPI

3) For each product I will make a single claim, based on the total amount of PPI paid, plus the standard 8% on just that total.

 

Does this sound reasonable?

I understand that if I delve deeper, then ultimately I will have a larger claim since interest would be based on individual payments rather than an overall figure at the the final date; but the current total claim amount would be sufficient for me to be happy.

 

Any input welcome!!

 

Thanks in advance, this forum really is a gem!

Link to post
Share on other sites
ims21

ims21

Posted
Posted

Hi

 

The principle of redress on a loan account is that you get back and payments you have made towards the premium plus the contractual interest paid in respect of those payments. In addition you get 8% simple interest on each payment made running from the date of payment to the date of settlement of the claim.

 

With a single premium policy, the amount of the premium is added to the loan and you pay for it over the lifetime of loan. If a loan is settled early then a rebate of PPI should be given since the overall premium is reduced because the insurable risk no longer exists. However, the rebates given are not normally correct and there is usually and overpayment of PPI at the point of settlement which also should come back to you. This will also attract 8% interest as above.

 

Banks are required to hold on to data for six years after the account was closed but we do know that they keep records for a lot longer and when they have been pressed, data suddenly appears which they have previously said they do not hold.

 

If you feel that you have not received all of the data you are entitled to under a SAR then you could send them the failed SAR letter from the CAG library. It has been the case where some have had to threaten legal action to force the bank to release their data. The other thing is to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

 

In the meantime you could just file your is-selling complaints as explained earlier and then chase the data after submission of your claim. You don't need to submit any figures with your claim although you might like to attach a copy of the document you received outlining the products and the PPI amounts.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hortz

Hortz

Posted
Posted
Ok, to clarify my position and understanding (based on recent forum reading):

 

1) I have six PPI products based on personal loans

2) For each product I have a total amount of PPI

3) For each product I will make a single claim, based on the total amount of PPI paid, plus the standard 8% on just that total.

 

Does this sound reasonable?

I understand that if I delve deeper, then ultimately I will have a larger claim since interest would be based on individual payments rather than an overall figure at the the final date; but the current total claim amount would be sufficient for me to be happy.

 

Any input welcome!!

 

Thanks in advance, this forum really is a gem!

 

What is it that you actually think has been done wrong, by who and when?

 

Without this info anyone trying to assist is stabbing in the dark a to some extent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stan**

Stan**

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
Hi

 

The principle of redress on a loan account is that you get back and payments you have made towards the premium plus the contractual interest paid in respect of those payments. In addition you get 8% simple interest on each payment made running from the date of payment to the date of settlement of the claim.

 

With a single premium policy, the amount of the premium is added to the loan and you pay for it over the lifetime of loan. If a loan is settled early then a rebate of PPI should be given since the overall premium is reduced because the insurable risk no longer exists. However, the rebates given are not normally correct and there is usually and overpayment of PPI at the point of settlement which also should come back to you. This will also attract 8% interest as above.

 

Banks are required to hold on to data for six years after the account was closed but we do know that they keep records for a lot longer and when they have been pressed, data suddenly appears which they have previously said they do not hold.

 

If you feel that you have not received all of the data you are entitled to under a SAR then you could send them the failed SAR letter from the CAG library. It has been the case where some have had to threaten legal action to force the bank to release their data. The other thing is to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

 

In the meantime you could just file your is-selling complaints as explained earlier and then chase the data after submission of your claim. You don't need to submit any figures with your claim although you might like to attach a copy of the document you received outlining the products and the PPI amounts.

 

Hi, thanks for the reply.

 

My point is, if I have a single figure from a single premium policy, then ultimately in terms of financial data this is all I need for a "basic" claim?

i.e. a larger claim could be made if I had the monthly breakdown from the beginning of the term, but if I am willing to settle for a lesser amount, then the breakdown isn't strictly required?

Though I appreciate I am then taking their word that all figures are true and correct RE overpayment etc.

 

For the record, this "lesser" amount is more than enough for me to clear my current debts, which is the main aim of this exercise.

Edited by Stan**
Link to post
Share on other sites
ims21

ims21

Posted
Posted

You have enough information to lodge a claim, yes.

 

There is no "larger" or "smaller" claim.

 

The bank will work out the refund due from their record of payments made against each product (if they still have them) and that calculation will be done using the FSA/FCA rules of redress for mis-selling.

 

It would then be up to the claimant to check those figures are correct if they have doubts and that can only be done if there are records available.

 

I would suggest getting the claims in and await the response.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
Stan**

Stan**

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi all,

 

Received a letter from HSBC today, which basically says we need to fill out an attached questionnaire - Im assuming this is just a stalling tactic?

 

So, what to do - fill out the complaint form for each loan account, or is there another better approach?

 

Thanks in advance...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
dx100uk

dx100uk

Posted
Posted

you complain to the Information Commissioners Office.

 

were these HFC loans par chance?

 

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...