Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for letting us know about this. I'm afraid that this website is mainly bad news about companies so it's very refreshing and very decent for someone to come along and to give praise where praise is due. How about a link to their website?
    • Having a little additional think about this, I think that your interests are best protected in the following way: You inform the seller that you are obtaining the quotes which I have referred to above. Having received the quotes, you then inform them that you are proposing to have the work carried out at XXX garage and that you will expect that the seller will reimburse you for the costs and associated expenses. You can tell them though that you understand that they may want to control the work being done to the car and so you are willing to allow them to do it but as the fault has manifested itself at this point and that it is clear that the problem is their responsibility, if they wish to carry the work out themselves then they will have to organise the collection vehicle and the delivery of it to you once the work is completed. Of course this will be very expensive for them and they will either fail to respond or they will refuse. Whatever their reaction, you would then go on to say that as they have failed to respond/declined the invitation to carry out the repairs themselves, that you are now going to your preferred garage – one of the two quotations which you have supplied – and you will have the vehicle repaired there. You are giving them an opportunity to comment. I think that if you use this approach, then you will be able to demonstrate very clearly that they had a choice and therefore they will be unable to disassociate themselves from the repairs which are eventually carried out at your chosen repairer. Even though this exchange of correspondence may mean that it will take a week or so longer to have your repairs carried out, I think you should do this in order to protect yourself in the best way possible
    • Please name the dealer   I would start off by sending them a letter of rejection seeing as you are within the 30 days. This doesn't mean that you have to reject it but it reserves your position. Secondly, on the basis of what you say, I don't think that you need necessary to find the cheapest place. You should be looking at the best quality that you can find. I think the best thing to do would be to get to competing quotations for the work you propose to have carried out – and not necessarily at the cheapest place, but a couple of proper reputable garages – authorised for that kind of vehicle. Inform the dealer as to what you are doing and providing with copies of the estimates for the work before you put it in hand. Give them five days to object or to make other comments. Make it clear to them that once the work is carried out that you will be looking to them to reimburse you. Of course you are opening a can of worms here because if you get some further problems – more serious – you may find that the dealer is starting to say that because you have carried out your own work so your own repairer on the car, they cannot now say that any defects were inherent in the purchase – and that they may have been introduced by 1/3 party repairer. I'm afraid that you have certainly fallen into a trap of buying a car a long distance away from where you live. We find that people often tend to do that because they think the car they have found is the only one in the world for them. They forget to factor in the difficulties that they will be if there are defects – particularly if the car stopped altogether – the cost of transportation to the dealer, the cost of having to travel up and down the country to collect the car – and of course these difficulties could emerge several times through the initial years of your ownership of the vehicle if you are relying on your statutory rights and expect the dealer to meet those obligations. Furthermore, if you have to bring a court action against them you are now dealing with multijurisdictional claims – suing out of Scotland against the defendant in England and that adds to the complications. It's too late for you to do anything about this – unless you actually decide to reject the vehicle – but at the very least, other people who come across this thread may get some benefit from these comments. I think it's important for you to get the best quality repair you can and to make sure that the dealer is aware of what you are doing so that if later on they try to deny responsibility for further defects, that you will be able to show that they were fully appraised of what you are doing and they will have less room to manoeuvre themselves out of their statutory obligations. I'm afraid that purchasing a car from one dealer and then having it repaired by another service provider, brings into the same kinds of difficulties that somebody who purchases a central heating boiler from one supplier and then has it installed by a different supplier find themselves in. When things go wrong, the seller blames the installer. The installer blames the seller – and you, the customer, are piggy in the middle. Not a good place to be. I notice that you are doing things on the telephone. Big Fail! Read our customer services guide. In your situation you should be extremely careful to make sure that you have got a record of everything and a full paper trail
    • What information do DVLA need for a provisional licence ?   Think the ID issue needs to be looked at a bit more. Surely you have birth certificate, school information, Doctors records. School and Doctors should provide a letter to help with ID.                
    • Amex as with any creditor must help you the FOS should go with you and make them remove all interest charged from the very 1st time of asking for help. the FCA regulations actually almost dictate it, they most certainly clearly state that if the are FCA registered they must help.   it's very telling they have no marked your credit file....almost as if they know they are wrong. it's also telling that an irresponsible lending complaint might well be in order hear too, they can just keep upping the credit limit without checking you can pay. and ofcourse covid plays its part here and they've already admitted as they allowed payments holidays until october in line with the rest of the industry and they should be continuing that. you problem is you keep using the phone, no paperwork no record of things discussed. i'd get an SAR off to them. and get the comms/account log and all the statements from day one and go nail them.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 864 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

I had a Next Directory account opened in 1991 in which was paid off in full in 2004 and closed.

 

On checking my old statements it has come to my notice that their are various monthly PPI amounts deducted (£1,244 in total)

in which I cannot locate any agreement to or ever signing anything.

 

I sent the standard template letter with payment requesting Credit Agreement details etc.

 

I received a response from Next advising that when the account was opened a pack was sent

to me explaining that PPI was automatically added and would appear on the 2nd statement.

I was also invited to write to Next to advise if it was not necessary and how it could be cancelled.

 

Therefore it was not their responsibilty for suitability of said policy as they were not regulated at the time.

 

They also go onto say in the case of Next Directory consent is not given in the credit agreement

but is contained within the T & C's which appear in the Directory

and on the website and cannot confirm how the account was opened due to length of time ?

 

Next say that they do not need my consent to share information with such agencies as this would be addressed by agreeing to T & C's when placing orders.

 

Finally they are unable to provide a copy of a signed agreement

and that by law they do not have to anyway

but have sent a blank copy of Credit Agreement and final statement of account details.

 

I have today received a further letter from Next advising that I contact the policy administrator First Assist re PPI complaint,

who I called and they advised that it is Next's responsibilty for mis-selling ( as it was sold by Next) and not theirs ?

 

Now my questions are obviously what do I do next ?

 

Do I pursue First Assist / underwriters if regulated ?

 

If underwriters how can I find who they are ?

 

Also do I still submit a SAR to Next

or am I wasting good money ?

 

Any advice would be very much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

if next have said in writing that PPI was added automatically without you input

then that's a clear case of mis-selling.

 

next ARE your target.

 

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
if next have said in writing that PPI was added automatically without you input

then that's a clear case of mis-selling.

 

next ARE your target.

 

dx

 

Thanks DX

 

Just to give you update I called First Assist who kindly advised that Next Retail Ltd sold the policy ( but they were not regulated at the time) and First Assist were only administrators for the policy.

 

They also advised that Next would be responsible for accounts, issuing documentation etc to the customer so I will have to go back to Next with the mis-selling complaint.

 

I decided to email the CEO at Next and this morning received a reply.

 

They are again denying mis-selling but explained that the insurance was added automatically and that they would have sent copies of T & C's for cover advising that I could cancel within first 3 months of payments. Therefore the onus was put on the customer to cancel it if it was not necessary. I requested a copy of said agreement and they advised that their is no PPI information mentioned as it was a separate service ???

 

They finally advised that Underwriters at the time were Phoenix Assurance now Groupama and Next provided contact details. They also suggested that I seek legal advice and that they would be happy to liase with.

 

Sorry to sound stupid but what do I do next ?

 

Shall I request a SAR from Next ? Shall I contact Groupama for policy details ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

as post 3

if next are saying in B&W it was added auto

then they are your target.

 

they cannot add PPI automatically as per the FOS etc

 

 

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
as post 3

if next are saying in B&W it was added auto

then they are your target.

 

they cannot add PPI automatically as per the FOS etc

 

 

dx

 

Thanks dx for your reply.

 

Comments noted but Next are saying that they were not regulated at time of sale and not subject to the jurisdiction of FOS, so no rules and regulations apply in this instance ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

well the ABi code was around before GISC but not sure when.

 

I wonder what a quick call to the FOS might throw up?

 

its certainly very wrong for any firm to have made and state

that PPI was added routinely without any customer approval

 

and if they didn't cancel

is gives them the green light to carry on.

 

interesting case.

 

and then to put that in B&W too

 

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
well the ABi code was around before GISC but not sure when.

 

I wonder what a quick call to the FOS might throw up?

 

its certainly very wrong for any firm to have made and state

that PPI was added routinely without any customer approval

 

and if they didn't cancel

is gives them the green light to carry on.

 

interesting case.

 

and then to put that in B&W too

 

dx

 

Thanks again for your reply.

 

Will give FOS a call and see what they say. Will probably suggest contacting the Underwriter as they would have been regulated or I know Groupama are as I read something on this site about them.

 

Should I still go back to Next in the meantime again disputing their findings ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dx here is a copy of Next response :-

 

13 March 2014

 

Our Ref: ............

 

Dear XXXXX

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact Lord Wolfson. He’s asked me to look into things and reply to your email on his behalf.

 

I'm sorry for any confusion caused by the letter sent by my colleague. I do need to confirm that First Assist will only be able to help you if you have a complaint about the administration of the policy. If your complaint is about how it was set up, they will confirm that Next is responsible for the sale of the cover, as mentioned in our letter.

 

I understand you've requested that the Payment Protection premiums you've paid, be refunded. We certainly recognise that you are a loyal Next customer and would never want you to be left feeling disappointed. So I hope you'll accept my personal apologies for the inconvenience you've been caused by all this.

 

I know Jackie’s already explained this, but I just wanted to clarify that in December 1991, the insurance was added to accounts automatically. However we did then send you a copy of the Terms and Conditions for the cover, and confirmed you could cancel it within the first 3 months if you felt it wasn't suitable, for a full refund. It was then the customer's responsibility to ensure the cover was appropriate for their needs, or to cancel it if at anytime they felt it was not.

 

I understand you requested a copy of the credit agreement for your account as you wanted to check information about the Payment Protection policy. I need to let you know that it’s not mentioned in the agreement, as it was a separate service. However, I have attached a copy as requested.

 

I can confirm that at the time the insurance began on your account until 31 May 2006, the underwriters were Phoenix Assurance - although it is now Groupama Insurances. I've supplied the address we have for both companies below.

 

Phoenix Assurance Plc Groupama Insurances

Policyholder Services 6th Floor

PO Box 30 One America Square

Liverpool 17 Crosswall, London

L69 3HS EC3N 2LB

 

Sometimes we need to make difficult decisions, and I'm afraid that in this case, it remains unchanged. I appreciate you won't be happy with this. But if you do wish to pursue this matter, I would suggest you seek legal advice. We will be happy to liaise with any authorised third party. And I am grateful to you for giving me the chance to look into this and explain our position again.

 

With kind regards

 

Tina Robinson

Complaint Resolution Management Team

 

Regards

 

Bazza

Link to post
Share on other sites

so you didn't sign for it

didn't want it

didn't know about

but they auto charged every customer regardless...

 

incredible!

 

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
so you didn't sign for it

didn't want it

didn't know about

but they auto charged every customer regardless...

 

incredible!

 

dx

 

Yes I know hence why I went to the CEO at Next and they have even admitted in writing that it was automated and PPI was not even mentioned in the Credit Agreement !

 

I will have to speak to FOS as suggested but my main concern is regarding regulation. Fell determined with this one but on reviewing forum looks like this is the norm and no successes :x

 

Is there any other option do you think ? Not too confident with FOS at moment on other issues. The account was paid off in 2005 and zero balance, but was charged PPI from December 1991 till then totalling £1,243.57.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Yes I know hence why I went to the CEO at Next and they have even admitted in writing that it was automated and PPI was not even mentioned in the Credit Agreement !

 

I will have to speak to FOS as suggested but my main concern is regarding regulation. Fell determined with this one but on reviewing forum looks like this is the norm and no successes :x

 

Is there any other option do you think ? Not too confident with FOS at moment on other issues. The account was paid off in 2005 and zero balance, but was charged PPI from December 1991 till then totalling £1,243.57.

 

Just an up-date for anyone interested.

 

Spoke to FOS who suggested Underwriter route and

 

today received a standard fob off letter from Ageas / Groupama denying any responsibility

but just say that First Assist were responsible for the administration of PPI

and Next were responsible for the selling.

 

They don't say nothing else apart from this is their final decision and have 6 months to go to FOS if unhappy.

 

Should I go back to Ageas dis-agreeing with their decision as they have not responded to my comments stated in my letter or do I go back to First Assist ?

 

Any help what to do next would be appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Baz

 

I have just gone back to the FOS because l had a fob off from Ageas as well.

 

I did SAR Next about 3 years ago and they could not even provide any PPI documentation,

 

l asked when l had requested it and they tried to say l had asked for it in a store.

 

All they keep saying is that no one was responsible for selling it, but it wasn't ever sold, it was just added to the account.

I paid off my account some time ago.

 

It seems amazing they can get away with it, l am thinking of issuing a letter before action.

 

Cups

 

 

 

 

Just an up-date for anyone interested. Spoke to FOS who suggested Underwriter route and today received a standard fob off letter from Ageas / Groupama denying any responsibility but just say that First Assist were responsible for the administration of PPI and Next were responsible for the selling.

 

They don't say nothing else apart from this is their final decision and have 6 months to go to FOS if unhappy.

 

Should I go back to Ageas dis-agreeing with their decision as they have not responded to my comments stated in my letter or do I go back to First Assist ?

 

Any help what to do next would be appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites
Baz

 

I have just gone back to the FOS because l had a fob off from Ageas as well.

 

I did SAR Next about 3 years ago and they could not even provide any PPI documentation,

 

l asked when l had requested it and they tried to say l had asked for it in a store.

 

All they keep saying is that no one was responsible for selling it, but it wasn't ever sold, it was just added to the account.

I paid off my account some time ago.

 

It seems amazing they can get away with it, l am thinking of issuing a letter before action.

 

Cups

 

Cheers Cups and keep me posted.

 

Mine is in the hands of FOS now as getting nowhere fast with Underwriters / First Assist.

 

Will keep up-dated with any developements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

[

 

 

 

 

Hi

Mine still with FOS but with Ageas, nothing heard for a while, will update you when l hear from them,

Cups

 

 

QUOTE=Baz1994;4524735]Cheers Cups and keep me posted.

 

 

 

 

 

Mine is in the hands of FOS now as getting nowhere fast with Underwriters / First Assist.

 

Will keep up-dated with any developements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
[

 

 

 

 

Hi

Mine still with FOS but with Ageas, nothing heard for a while, will update you when l hear from them,

Cups

 

 

QUOTE=Baz1994;4524735]Cheers Cups and keep me posted.

 

 

 

 

 

Mine is in the hands of FOS now as getting nowhere fast with Underwriters / First Assist.

 

Will keep up-dated with any developements.

 

Yes I'm in the same boat, mine still with FOS / Ageas - had an up-date last week saying that they were still investigating.

 

Will let you know if I hear anything further.

 

g/l :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Hi, really interested to read your thread as I've had my account since 1990 and only cancelled the PPI about 2 years ago!

 

Have you had any joy with progressing your claim, it really is a case of sustained daylight robbery!

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi, really interested to read your thread as I've had my account since 1990 and only cancelled the PPI about 2 years ago!

 

Have you had any joy with progressing your claim, it really is a case of sustained daylight robbery!

 

Thanks

 

Not at the moment as claim still with FOS / Ageas, so who knows how long I will have to wait for a decision :x

 

Next Directory didn't want to know but suggested underwriters who then denied all responsibility but as they were regulated at the time, I had to pass it to FOS for their investigation.

 

Will keep you posted of any further developments.

 

Cheers g/l

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Hi

Just spoke to FOS, they say they are in talks with Ageas / Next and the other company about this matter. Said it was all about who was responsible for the mess. I did explain that Lord Wolfson had committed to paper that the PPI had just been added to the account, so there was no selling if PPI it was just added without any consideration to a person's circumstances or consent.

FOS said they are dealing with it

Cups

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

Just spoke to FOS, they say they are in talks with Ageas / Next and the other company about this matter. Said it was all about who was responsible for the mess. I did explain that Lord Wolfson had committed to paper that the PPI had just been added to the account, so there was no selling if PPI it was just added without any consideration to a person's circumstances or consent.

FOS said they are dealing with it

Cups

 

Thanks for the up-date cups and I also gave them a call today re mine - said exactly the same to me and that they would let me know as soon as possible.

 

Cheers

 

Baz

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Just an up-date to say that claim still with FOS but did receive a correspondence at the end of July stating that they would respond in details by December 2014.

 

So in the meantime I contacted Next again and asked for any policy details and confirmation of any financial relationship with administrator and Underwriters.

 

Well I today received a copy of the Master Policy and confirmation of the policy number. It also clearly states that the policyholder Next are to declare every month to the Insurer / Underwriters premiums received and refunded and shall pay to Underwriters the net premium and IPT due after deduction of commission.

 

They also stated that policy administrators First Assist received remuneration from Underwriters / Insurer and the policy issue and insurance premium collection was carried out by Next.

 

So as Next plc were not regulated at the time of sale but Underwriters were, does the above confirm a financial relationship between all parties involved ? Is there anything else that I should be asking or to whom should I be addressing further requests ?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

That is interesting, the FOS seemed to think that it was being sorted out soon.

I found my own original statements and when l opened the account there was no PPI it was added later on without my authorisation, l would not have asked for it.

Cups

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...