Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Did you take screenshots or anything of the descriptions that you gave? Do you have any evidence to support you say? In any event, you paid for the insurance, you declared the parts having given the descriptions and they accepted it all on that basis. You have begun the claim procedure yet so I suggest that you do so. We'll see what happens. In any event, it could be said that the various sections are contradictory. Parts relating to vehicles are containing three separate sections and it is relatively difficult to discern which section a particular part should come into. Section 69 of the consumer rights act relates to ambiguities and basically says that an ambiguity must be interpreted in favour of the consumer.  
    • I have booked a Hotel/Flights Package with the above paying a 10% deposit with the balance due a month before travel next August.   On looking at Cancellation Charges they virtually say 100% 84 days out plus.   According to the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements regulations 2018 - termination fees have to be "Reasonable and Justifiable"   I find it hard to comprehend how last minutes charges could fall into the above description.   For example the hotel is available on Booking.com for our dates with no pre-payment and free cancellation up to the day before arrival.   I'm not sure of their arrangement with BA but the tickets we reserved have doubled in price in the last week and could easily be resold.   I can't find any anecdotal evidence or Court Cases relating to them trying to collect Cancellation Charges from people who have not already paid the full balance and cancel. If I were to cancel 8 months out is it likely they would pursue me for the remaining balance.    
    • Hi   Something else I think you need to ask the Insurer for Clarification on is.   That you require full clarification on which clauses within the Terms & Condition of the Policy they are using to refuse payment under the Policy.     I would also consider sending the Insurer a Subject Access Request simply asking for 'ALL DATA' this covers whatever format they hold it in whether it be email/telephone recording/written format etc. (note: if they require you to use their own subject access request form always put 'ALL DATA' on their form)    
    • matters not what they come up with it's statute barred      
    • Revised defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply. I dont believe they have provided this yet correctly   2. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all. still stands   3. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   4. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   5. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   6. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   7. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.    
  • Our picks

Michael Browne

FCA to review success of PPI complaints process

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1772 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) could consider a time limit on Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) complaints

as part of a wider review to decide if the scheme has been a success.


The FCA said it will use this evidence to assess whether the current approach is securing appropriate protection for consumers

and enhancing the integrity of the UK’s financial system.



It will look at how banks are handling complaints and how PPI complaints are being made.


The regulator will then consider whether further action is needed such as a time limit on complaints

or whether to continue the PPI scheme in its current form.


The FCA will publish its conclusions in the summer.


Since January 2011, firms have handled over 14 million PPI consumer complaints about the sale of PPI,

upholding over 70% and paying £17.3 billion compensation.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The message here is that the shyster banks have won over the FCA on time limits but the FCA want to make it look as if it is a considered opinion which they have arrived at independently.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...