Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Yorkshire Building Society refused PPI reclaim


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3214 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 have submitted reclaim for missold PPI to Yorkshire Building Society

 

 

they have responded to advise that they refuse claim on the grounds that throughout their investigation they found no evidence to suggest they acted inappropriately or improperly in any way either when arranging MPI cover at the outset or since.

They have although found evidence to suggest that we were aware of the policy existing.

 

We were told at the outset of applying for our mortgage that we would have to take endowment and payment protection insurance for our mortgage application to be looked on favourably.

 

 

It was our first ever house purchase and mortgage and both my ex husband and I remember being pushed in the direction the mortgage adviser wanted and because we so wanted this house we agreed to all they told us we had to.

 

They have provided copies of all the signed forms and say they find no evidence of misselling...... But they won't do because it was verbally implied we wouldn't get if didn't go down route of endowment policy and protect our payments.

 

Do we go straight to FOS now or go back to the Building Society?

 

 

What evidence could we provide to say missold as it was verbal?

Of course they not going to have it written on any documents it's just my ex husbands and my verbal evidence?

 

What now?

Anyone have any advice on how we can prove?

 

Thanks

 

P.s. I also notice they have changed it from PPI to MPI and the insurance we took out was to cover payments which we didn't need as I got full sick pay and redundancy and so was the case for my ex husband.

 

 

It was a monthly premium we paid which didn't affect any further interest charges added onto the mortgage but it was definable to cover our mortgage payment to the endowment policy if we were out of work for a period of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

we didn't need as I got full sick pay and redundancylink3.gif and so was the case for my ex husband.

 

 

then it was totally worthless and your circumstances were not properly assessed.

thus mis-sold.

 

 

that attached PDF might help.

 

 

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

there would be no harm in trying YB again.

 

 

rarely do any companies cough on a first attempt.

 

 

did you also include an FOS CQ with the complaint

or was it simply a speculation letter?

 

 

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 would,

the fact that the PPI was all but useless you both as you already had sufficient cover

is a more compelling reason for mis-sale

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 have submitted reclaim for missold PPI to Yorkshire Building Society

 

 

they have responded to advise that they refuse claim on the grounds that throughout their investigation they found no evidence to suggest they acted inappropriately or improperly in any way either when arranging MPI cover at the outset or since.

They have although found evidence to suggest that we were aware of the policy existing.

 

We were told at the outset of applying for our mortgage that we would have to take endowment and payment protection insurance for our mortgage application to be looked on favourably.

 

As regards the endowment, I am assuming your mortgage was interest only? If this is the case then it is correct that they insist on your having a repayment vehicle in place for the capital element.

 

 

It was our first ever house purchase and mortgage and both my ex husband and I remember being pushed in the direction the mortgage adviser wanted and because we so wanted this house we agreed to all they told us we had to.

 

They have provided copies of all the signed forms and say they find no evidence of misselling...... But they won't do because it was verbally implied we wouldn't get if didn't go down route of endowment policy and protect our payments.

 

When they say they find no evidence of misspelling, is this because it genuinely WAS a requirement of the offer that you take out PPI? (it isn't misselling if they tell you it is a condition of the offer and it genuinely is, only if they tell you it is a condition when it is not) Or are they saying it wasn't a condition of the offer but they can find no evidence to support your allegation? If the latter, this is the problem with verbal accusations, they are virtually impossible to prove.

 

Do we go straight to FOS now or go back to the Building Society?

 

If you have any further evidence or info they have not taken into account then go back to them. But don't leave it too long as you only have six months to go to FOS. If you are just arguing the toss over their original conclusion, this is unlikely to be successful and you may as well go directly to FOS.

 

What evidence could we provide to say missold as it was verbal?

Of course they not going to have it written on any documents it's just my ex husbands and my verbal evidence?

 

What now?

Anyone have any advice on how we can prove?

 

You can't.

 

Thanks

 

P.s. I also notice they have changed it from PPI to MPI and the insurance we took out was to cover payments which we didn't need as I got full sick pay and redundancy and so was the case for my ex husband.

 

 

It was a monthly premium we paid which didn't affect any further interest charges added onto the mortgage but it was definable to cover our mortgage payment to the endowment policy if we were out of work for a period of time.

 

How long did you get full sick pay for? It is generally very hard to make this argument stick with FOS on mortgage PPI because it is a long term debt and can result in your being made homeless if unpaid. It is easier with unsecured loan/credit card PPI as this debt is considered of less importance. 12 months full pay or more might be a winner, any less and probably not. As regards redundancy pay, this is not likely to be a consideration, you are very unlikely to have a contractual entitlement to this (since it would become taxable if you did), any redundancy would be an ex gratia payment at the discretion of the company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

we didn't need as I got full sick pay and redundancylink3.gif and so was the case for my ex husband.

 

 

then it was totally worthless and your circumstances were not properly assessed.

thus mis-sold.

 

 

that attached PDF might help.

 

 

dx

 

If the policy was sold on an advised basis and the OP had sufficient sick pay then this is correct. If it was sold on a non advised basis then the company is not responsible for assessing circumstances and appropriateness, this is the customer's responsibility. The OP has not said which this was nor how much sick pay he/she actually got, hence it is difficult to advise with certainty in this case. "

 

As regards the attached judgement, I don't feel it is likely to be of much use in this case. Completely different set of circumstances. The policy in that case was a single premium one, which as you can tell from the judgement, FOS don't like anyway, as opposed to a regular premium one. It was much more expensive than most mortgage PPI and was protecting a debt that is considered much less important than a mortgage, which can result in being made homeless if you don't pay it. The customer in that case was also concluded to have received advice and benefitted from one of the best sick pay schemes in the country. If FOS consider that the customer had sufficient sick pay to make the policy unnecessary then even in the absence of any evidence, they will assume that the customer can't have been accurately informed of what the product was/covered otherwise they wouldn't have purchased it. However, with MPPI, generally you would need at least 12 months full pay for FOS to uphold on this basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...