Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all, I was wondering what peoples thoughts / advice is for my following situation. Unfortunately, I have been caught speeding on the m6 - 56mph in a temporary 40 zone. I did not realise that the speed for the current stretch I was on, was reduced to a 40, I knew that some parts was bought down to 50mph but not 40. Ultimately, it is on own fault for not being more focused at the time.  I was wondering whether anyone caught doing similar speeds over the limit have been offered a speed awareness course. My letter states that the records show I have not met the criteria for a speed awareness course, which I feel is harsh given this is my first offence & the threshold for consideration is upto 53mph as stated below, our speed narrowly exceeded the limit and falls within the guidelines set out by the National Police Chief Council (NPCC) up to: 31 mph in a 20 mph area 42 mph in a 30 mph area 53 mph in a 40 mph area. Could I argue that my speedometer is not entirely accurate as such I should be considered in the 53mph bracket above and considered for a speed awareness course?  
    • Hi dx, Thanks for getting back to me about my queries. Why do think making token payments to my nationwide CC is the best approach?  Also, in general how often do nationwide go for CCJs themselves? Thanks again
    • Hi, She said the machine actually tells you how much you have to pay and you pay on your card. I've actually emailed evology who make the machine to ask for an explanation as to how this can happen - in essence it is 1min over! With regards to the 8 mins one, she is adamant the the machine said no charge when she left - her ex-boyfriend was with her in the car and he confirmed this so god knows what is going on. Worth chancing the set aside? With regards to G24, not done anything yet - not sure I want to alert them to the other address - should I just write and confirm the Scottish address with no reference to anything else? Thanks for your time FTMDave. T.
  • 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

Marbles Credit Card PPI


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3626 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

Well no success for me,

 

I had the card since 2002 and like alot of people had it added,

 

never knew what it was and

 

thought it was just one of those things that was part of having the card, yes i was young and naive!

 

Well I challenged Marbles last year and

 

got back their "its your fault you should have known better" line in quite a condecending manner.

 

The best part was saying that I requested PPI on my application form

but as it was so long ago the form has been destroyed?!

 

As far as they were concerned this was the end of it but included leaflet for ombudsman and said that I could write to them.

 

So I did.

 

And they replied that as it was taken out before 2005 and is a credit card that's it,

theres nothing they can do.

 

SooooooIs that it?

 

Is there anything I can do now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

did you sar them for the statements and the agreement?

 

GISC was inplace so I cant see why they've turned you down.

 

they cant say you wanted it

but not produce the evidence!!

 

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

I didn't SAR them,

 

I cotacted the complaints with the ombudsman form

 

That was my response,

 

how can they say I applied for it and wanted it without any evidence,

 

their view was that because it was there from the begining then I had applied for it,

 

just part of a letter that really annoyed me in it's tone and attitude!

Link to post
Share on other sites

its call a speculative fob off letter.

 

you sent a speculative questionnaire , with, no proof as such

that PPI was charged.

 

 

they sent a speculative reply back.

 

PROVe them wrong with evidence.

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

Can I though?

 

Their letter, and I quote directly states

 

:"I must advise that as you have now reached the end of our internal complaint procedure,

no further correspondence will be entered into regarding this matter unless it is recieved directly from the Finacial Ombusdman Servce (FOS)"

 

So is this just a ploy (bearing in mind that FOS told me that they wold not take this up as it was a credit card company and taken out pre-2005)

to get rid of me or is that it, they're going to stick fingers in their ears and ignore me?!

 

Seems a pretty cushy situation if all that is correct,

 

sell something, if customer complains say is their fault and thats it

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would advert that claim as was is settled

 

cant see why you cant start a new claim.

 

yes i'd say that's a fob off.

 

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

I don't think the business will correspond with you if you complain again. They will just say that the matter has been dealt with and refer you back to the original final response.

 

I'd go back to FOS - I am not sure they are right about the pre 2005 thing. Just because a product was sold pre 2005 does not automatically mean they are unable to help. It does a lot of the time, but I am sure that Marbles products are covered. As far as I am aware, HFC Bank were responsible for Marbles around the 2002 mark - so that may be useful information to give to FOS.

Warning: Freemen of the Land Operate here. Think twice before accepting 'legal advice'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...