Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Winemark the wine merchant ltd northern ireland
    • Hi Sweet and welcome to CAG   Are you willing to disclose the employer in this case ?
    • I was the manager of an off license. We reopened on mon 30th, I received a very large delivery which we weren’t expecting (and I wasn’t told about until 2hrs before by my line manager) all managers received a text from regional manager which stated when deliveries are coming in shops are to be closed. He didn’t ring this info in, I just read the text.   When I saw how big del was (completely covered the floor, could barely move around it) I kept my shutters closed and proceeded to pack delivery away. The store remained closed and we lost 5hrs trading time. I didn’t seek permission from manager to do this, with the current safety precautions enacted (only allowed 1 customer in at a time as manadated by HQ) I didn’t feel this could be safely achieved with 3 members of staff in and all the stock everywhere.  regional manger calls into shop at 4:50, hits roof that it’s closed and storms out of shop after exclaiming I didn’t have the authority to keep shop closed.   Fast forward 1 1/2 weeks later today regional manager comes in at 4pm with prepared questions, I answer truthfully stated I didn’t think it was safe I had the best interests of business at heart that I had turned up for work every day since this incident and nothing had been said. He said that they will examine this information and can come back for more evidence if needed.    He goes away again and at 5:59 (my shift finished at 6) he came back in saying they’d examined all the evidence and that their decision was dismissal, I was to gather my things and there’d be a letter in the post with information should I wish to appeal.  quite a shock.   I will see what this letter states as their reasons I committed gross misconduct, I am a bit at a loss as to what I specifically did to be deemed gross misconduct.   I’ve worked for them for 10years, taken 2 days off sick in that entire time and had a faultless record   I’m just flabbergasted they’d immediately sack me for something which happened in unprecedented times when all I was trying to do was keep myself and my staff safe and safely make their store presentable and adequately accessible for all.   Any thoughts on the above? Obviously this is all too fresh as it happened only hours ago 
    • Hi KL1 and welcome to CAG.   You say the buyer contacted you saying, "...... he had seen it cheaper somewhere else and wanted to cancel the sale."   Do you have this in writing and, if so, in what format ?   It would be useful if you could tell us more about the item you sold.    
    • I wanted to report a success against UKPS that started in Dec 2018 and was concluded today.  I did do a bit of reading through this site for guidance though so thanks for that!    in Dec 2018 a family member reversed onto a private road in Coventry and waited about 1 minute or so to collect their partner.  Meanwhile the owner was loitering and waiting to catch anyone on his land with photos.  2 photos were taken about 40 seconds apart.   With my help I disputed the charge stating that the driver had not "parked" but had only stopped momentarily to pick up a passenger.  I did not state at any point who the driver was.   UKPS from Leamington Spa were trying to enforce this and insisted on the charge of £60 + £100 being paid.  I sent a 2nd letter confirming the position of the 1st letter and that no further letters would be sent.   4 threatening letters were sent from Debt Recovery Plus and Zenith Collections and duly ignored.  The last kindly offered to settle for £136!    Then a letter from Gladstones Sols threatening the same was also sent, and mentioned Beavis vs Parking Eye.  This was also duly ignored.   Finally a Letter Before Action was sent by email.  Aha!  Game on.  They cited Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Nick Idle and Vehicle Control Services Limited v Damen Ward and that stopping for any time is a breach, and it was only the length of time stopped that may affect the value of the breach.   I said that signage said no PARKING, not no STOPPING and that appropriate case law was JOPSON v HOMEGUARD where the judge specifically said "Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it"   They then came back at me with an evidence bundle they were allegedly going to use at court against me, stated the signage was clear,  a nd repeated their "no stopping" case   I came back at them with the same as before and added that, in their world, someone coming onto the land and wanting to read the signage would have precisely NO TIME AT ALL to so as, according to them, even stopping for mere seconds was a breach.  I also threatened that I would claim costs for my wasted time in dealing the case.   Today they emailed me as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good Morning,   Thank you for your correspondence. We apologise for the delay in our response, however as no further action has taken place we trust you agree no prejudice has been suffered.   Please note that our Client has cancelled our instruction on this matter and the matter is considered closed.   No further action is warranted. Kind Regards ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   16 months on and UKPS gave in  
  • Our picks

teac532s

Help needed after Santander rejection

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1637 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

Hi all.

 

Hoping someone can advise me on what to do for a friend who has had her claim rejected from Santander.

 

 

I know the claim goes back a while ,

store card was taken out in 2000 and closed in 2004,

and the agreement paperwork is clearly signed by my friend in the ppi section.

But my friend explained that at the time in store of selling it was just sign here here and here.

 

 

Nothing was explained to her at the time and subsequently when she tried to reclaim ppi she got the final response letter

stating they had no evidence of miss selling so could not refund.

 

Now at the time of getting the store card with the attched ppi she was unemployed , pregnant and on crutches

so in my view the fact that she was unemployed means she should never had been sold ppi in the first place.

 

 

Would I be correct in this as I am wanting to help her try to fight this case.

She did hand it over to a claims company but they could do nothing as she had started the claim herself.

Should I try agian and if so what would my best first approach be.

 

Thanks all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ensure she fills out the FOS ppi questionnaire and complain to the FOS if the final responce has been given


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sabresheep. Thanks for he reply but when she tried to reclaim she didnt mention to them she was unemployed. Surely this would be enough to try agian before going the fos route

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sales assistants' button-holing people at the checkout

and ticking boxes was a very good ruse too make them commission on each sale to their wage packet.

 

 

prove it was not ticked by the card holder and you were away.

 

 

there are numerous successes even on the FOS website with examples of such.

 

 

the unemployed aspect should be secondary


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, the whole DCA industry would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks dx but the problem there is she did sign in the ppi box although she remembers it was sign here here and here with no explanation. hence them saying no evidence since she signed although the tick box for agreeing that terms and conditions had been read to her is unticked. yes she took the card out at a store and was under pressure at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the sales rep placing marks here here and here to sign by

is a very good example and has had many successes.

 

 

the T&C were very obv not explained to her

as if they were

it would have become rather evident that

being unemployed and already on crutches

the PPI in plain B&W at the time - was of no use to her whatsoever!


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, the whole DCA industry would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again dx. So I guess my first salvo should be a letter asking them to re examine the case highlighting the fact that her being unemployed at the time would make ppi uselees to her and also highlighting the terms and cons not being read , to see what their reply would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do they say the t&cs were outlined to her?

if so then the PPI was evidently utterly useless....

 

 

though I can see you hitting the 'unadvised sale' wall here.


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, the whole DCA industry would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dx on the credit agreement there is a check box for I confirm etc but ut also states" I have read and understood the terms and conditions" among other things. The check box has not been ticked in this agreement so she does not remember being asked to read them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you have a copy of the agreement and the ppi t&cs, if so post them up minus personal details please


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a copy of the agreement. She is trying to find the t&c. I will post the agreement minus details

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all.

 

Hoping someone can advise me on what to do for a friend who has had her claim rejected from Santander.

 

 

I know the claim goes back a while ,

store card was taken out in 2000 and closed in 2004,

and the agreement paperwork is clearly signed by my friend in the ppi section.

But my friend explained that at the time in store of selling it was just sign here here and here.

 

 

Nothing was explained to her at the time and subsequently when she tried to reclaim ppi she got the final response letter

stating they had no evidence of miss selling so could not refund.

 

Now at the time of getting the store card with the attched ppi she was unemployed , pregnant and on crutches

so in my view the fact that she was unemployed means she should never had been sold ppi in the first place.

 

 

Would I be correct in this as I am wanting to help her try to fight this case.

She did hand it over to a claims company but they could do nothing as she had started the claim herself.

Should I try agian and if so what would my best first approach be.

 

Thanks all

 

No benefit in involving a claims company. They could take up her case and fight it if they wanted. However, they won't as they only want easy wins, not cases they will have to fight hard.

 

Has she told them she was unemployed? If this was the case then she almost certainly would not have been eligible for the cover. However, the provider would be within their rights to ask for evidence of this, otherwise anyone could make any claim they like about their employment status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hortz. Yes she was on income support at the time so can prove it if needs be. She tells me that she already told them in her first attempt that she was unemployed but still got the final response letter anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Hortz. Yes she was on income support at the time so can prove it if needs be. She tells me that she already told them in her first attempt that she was unemployed but still got the final response letter anyway.

 

Have they addressed this matter in their response?

 

I would go back once reiterating that she was unemployed and hence ineligible for the cover, enclose a copy of the evidence. Give it a month and if no satisfactory response commence a case with FOS.

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...