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

PPI CMC want fee for EACH LOAN in a chain?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3414 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

Hi,

 

I have posted this on another forum so apologies if you are members of both and have already seen this post.

 

I need help understanding something with my PPI payout.

 

I instructed a claims company to look into my PPI claim (yes I know, should have done it myself)

and my bank have upheld the two queries on loans,

explained everything that will be paid out and why.

 

 

Attached to the bottom of this is another loan (that my claims company were not instructed to look into)

and this has no PPI.

 

 

However, loan A was refinanced by loan C (no ppi)

and my bank have stated that because of the PPI on loan A,

the amount on loan C was higher than it needed to be and have refunded me the over payment.

 

My claims company are wanting to take their percentage (plus VAT) off the amount refunded on loan C.

 

Now this is what I cannot get my head around.

 

 

My claims company have in their T's and C's:

Please note that your bank may uphold other mis-sold PPI that you have purchased as a result of our approach to them.

If this is the case, we will deal with these cases on your behalf and the same charges of 25% + VAT will apply.

 

There is no mention of any over payments from refinanced loans being subject to their fees.

 

 

The way I see it, they are wanting 2 lots of fee's for the same loan.

 

 

Loan A - PPI refund and then the additional amount I had to refinance to cover that PPI in loan C.

 

Am I just reading this all wrong?

 

 

If someone could explain this to me in a simple way I would be grateful.

 

 

I understand from the other forum that it will more than likely have to be paid,

I just want to understand why.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

they are not correct and are trying to fleece you

 

 

the amount that was refinanced from loan A contained PPI

no latter loans had it.

 

 

ask them to show you WHERE in the later loans the AGREEMENT shows you took out PPI?

 

 

they DONT.

 

 

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 loan b has ppi on the agreement?

 

 

thing is, even if it does, its a chain, ONE fee only.

 

 

as they are linked by refinancing.

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 where does loan b fit in?

 

 

was this before loan a then and paid off?

 

 

you've lost m e totally.

 

 

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

then they can only charge fees for loan A end 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

What have you actually authorised them to complain about? Because they are entitled to their cut of any redress which arises as a result of their complaint.

 

It is true that with a single premium policy, if the loan is refinanced early, you will pay more in repayments and interest on the subsequent loan as a result of the less than proportionate rebate, even if the later loan had no PPI. The FCA requires redress calculations to take this into account. Because the total amount is all a result of their complaint then they are entitled to a cut on all of it.

 

Loan B is, from what you've said, a separate issue but obviously if you authorised them to complain about that then they will take a cut of that as well.

 

I am no fan of CMCs whatsoever but I doubt if you are going to be able to get out of this one I am afraid. If you don't pay them then expect to have to argue your point in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...