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

Capital one PPI


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3807 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

having a fight with Capital One,

trying to reclaim my PPI that I paid for 6 years,

they are refusing to pay it to me.

 

I am arguing that I was self employed and they knew this so policy should not have been sold to me.

 

i sent them CCA letter 12+2 days

 

I received a reply showing a photocopy of my original signed credit agreement.

 

Yes I did tick the box for PPI,

but I also ticked the box about my employment to say I was self employed.

 

Who wins this one then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

might not either ...silly post..

 

what have you done so far in terms of reclaiming?

 

have you sent anything off?

 

like an FOS CQ and your spreadsheet

?

 

when was this taken out?

 

cap1 usually wriggle anyhow but cave in when confronted with court papers

 

tell us the full story of the debt and what you have done/sent to date

 

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

was the form filled out by yourself or one of their salespeople? in not yourself, then the box could have been ticked at any stage during the process. is the tick identical to other ticks used on the form ....... Are you CERTAIN it was ticked when you signed it??????

Link to post
Share on other sites

having a fight with Capital One,

trying to reclaim my PPI that I paid for 6 years,

they are refusing to pay it to me.

 

I am arguing that I was self employed and they knew this so policy should not have been sold to me.

 

i sent them CCA letter 12+2 days

 

I received a reply showing a photocopy of my original signed credit agreement.

 

Yes I did tick the box for PPI,

but I also ticked the box about my employment to say I was self employed.

 

Who wins this one then?

 

Difficult to say based on the info you've provided. If it was a distance (mail or internet) application and you did actively opt to have the cover and it covers self-employed people then it's difficult to see where the grounds for complaint lie. If there was a member of staff involved and it actually excluded self- employed you may have a case. More info needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...