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
      • 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

Not just Lloyds cutting PPI claims


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3637 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

Since February 2013 Lloyds Banking Group has been cutting the compensation it pays to payment protection insurance (PPI) claimants, on the basis that customers could have bought PPI cheaper somewhere else, so they only have to pay the difference between the two.

 

Well surprise, surprise other banks have been doing the same.

 

Barclays, Lloyds Banking Group and RBS confirmed they used comparative redress during the following periods:

 

  • Barclays offered comparative redress between October 2012 and October 2013.
  • Lloyds Banking Group has offered comparative redress since February 2013.
  • The RBS Group has offered comparative redress since early 2013.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2014/04/reclaimed-ppi-some-banks-have-underpaid-borrowers-100s

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since February 2013 Lloyds Banking Group has been cutting the compensation it pays to payment protection insurance (PPI) claimants, on the basis that customers could have bought PPI cheaper somewhere else, so they only have to pay the difference between the two.

 

Well surprise, surprise other banks have been doing the same.

 

Barclays, Lloyds Banking Group and RBS confirmed they used comparative redress during the following periods:

 

  • Barclays offered comparative redress between October 2012 and October 2013.
  • Lloyds Banking Group has offered comparative redress since February 2013.
  • The RBS Group has offered comparative redress since early 2013.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2014/04/reclaimed-ppi-some-banks-have-underpaid-borrowers-100s

 

This is poorly reported nonsense. The original article was written by someone who obviously has no understanding of the issues involved.

 

Comparative redress is expressly permitted by FCA rules. It is not a "loophole" as claimed in some of these articles, it is a perfectly fair and logical approach to redress if applied in the right situation (and obviously I can't comment on Lloyds' approach to how they apply it). The problem stems from the myth propagated by CMCs and subsequent public misunderstanding that a successful PPI complaint automatically results in a full refund.

 

This link makes it out as though it is some kind of underhand scheme by banks to catch people out without them knowing it. In fact, any letter offering comparative redress should clearly explain what is being offered and the reason for the offer. If the complainant doesn't agree they are then free to take it to FOS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst the article is clearly written in simplistic terms, the underlying issue is that comparative redress is being used in wholly inappropriate situations in many (but not all cases).

 

Whilst I agree that any letter offering comparative redress should explain what is being offered many do not and in fact some make no mention of the fact that this method is being adopted, merely stating that an offer is being made "broadly in line with FOS guidance".

 

Certainly for a lender who did not offer a monthly policy it is inappropriate, the other shady practice is using the FCA default of £9 per £100 of cover by those lenders who did have a monthly policy and who charged less than this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Come on, lets get real, the banks have worked out a new way to rip people off.

 

 

All this comparative nonsense can only be claimed if they told the customer at the time that other companies offered the 'same' insurance at a cheaper price. If they said nothing and just signed them up, then pay up and include the statutory interest as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Conniff - just another underhand way to reduce their liabilities.

 

would suggest that all future claims include a statement stating that you would not have purchased this and do not make the assumption I would have in order to reduce the redress.

 

A total rip off that makes me more determined to reclaim

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...