Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Lookinforinfo Thank you for your words of encouragement re the mortgage. But sadly we have no pension to fall back on, we have always been self employed and never in the position to put extra money away into pension. But we are dealing with that. We are not in arrears but trapped by a dormant lender! Anyway yes there were 2 seperate NTK, date of infringement on one was 23/4/21 for my parents and the other was 28/4/21 to my husbandm (this is the one that was discontiunued). They were both issued on 26/5/21, well after the 14 days. Please see my parents NTK questionnaire below, I have uploaded this and pictures previously on this post. But if you look at the detail, this is why I say they are more or less identical in every way. Apart from I think my parents were in there for a minute less than my husbands car.  They entered at 16.58 and exited and 17.15. I am waiting to see my parents this evening to get the court notice to allocation for her one in August 2024. Ill upload that as soon as I can Many thanks   1 Date of the infringement 23/4/21 2 Date on the NTK 26/5/2021  3 Date received 1/6/2021 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] NO - I cant see it anywhere 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? yes  2 x pictures, 1 entering and 1 exiting  6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] no 7 Who is the parking company? Parking Eye 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Kenwood House, Tunbridge Wells For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. BPA
    • Similar situation. I left Qatar in 2000 and have just received an email and letter from IDRWW about a debt with CBQ. Debt is disputed but apart from that surely 24 years is a bit of a time lapse to start proceedings.
    • its worthy to note this would be a business to business claim. dx  
    • no dont ever invite unnecessary letter tennis. await if/ever a letter of claim with a reply pack from overdales. i will guess this was paypal uk credit? what did she get that amount of credit for a purchase? dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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

Santander and PPI on a Principles store card


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2944 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've just received a rejection letter from Santander, apropos a Principles store card dating back to the 1990s. I'm adamant the PPI attatched to this was mis-sold on a number of levels and have every intention of pursuing this – as far as court should it prove necessary.

 

In the meantime, with it being some time since I've made any PPI claims I'm a little bit out of the loop and would appreciate any more information on where, exactly, we're at with regard to the Financial Conduct Authority's investigation into undisclosed commissions.

 

Currently, we are unable to consider this aspect of the matter until the FCA has set out its position on undisclosed commissions. We anticipate that this will be in or after April 2016, when we will revisit your complaint and provide a final response when the guidance has been published.

 

I've done a good bit of Googling but can't find anything to suggest the FCA is set to reveal its position any time soon and, this being the case, hoped a fellow CAGer might be able to shed some more light on this - in particular, how the FCA's decision might potentially advantage my claim and when we might expect some kind of announcement from the FCA.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an FCA statement on the issue, which gives some background: https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statement-on-payment-protection-insurance-ppi (scroll down to the section titled "Plevin")

 

The FCA consultation has concluded. It is now a matter of the FCA digesting the responses and working out where to go from there. It could be quite a while - though no firm time frame has been set.

 

I wouldn't say that this necessarily gives an advantage to any PPI mis-selling complaint. The FCA has proposed that where a complaint is affected by the unfair commission issue, then the consumer should be refunded the difference between a fair level of commission and the commission they actually paid. It will not be a refund of all the premiums - which is what would happen had there been a failure during the sale of the policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input mightymouse_69. What you've said and your link pretty much confirm what I'd already deduced, though I do now have a few supplementary thoughts and questions.

 

[1] Your link suggests the Plevin judgement relied on Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which was inserted by the Consumer Credit Act 2006. Given my PPI policy dates from the 1990s, it seems unlikely this legislation applies to my policy, unless, that is, there's any scope for it to be applied retrospectively. Any thoughts anyone might have on this would be very welcome.

 

[2] Notwithstanding my concerns above, as you point out even where a compliant is affected by the unfair commission issue, this will not trigger a refund of all premiums but, rather, the difference between a fair level of commission and the commission actually paid. Given I'm adamant my policy was mis-sold, for a multitude of reasons, as you suggest, this is not overly helpful to me.

 

At the same time, Santander's correspondence makes it very clear the sale of the policy involved an undisclosed commission and, it seems to me, this could be helpful –*Santander maintain the sale was non-advised, yet concede the shop assistant who sold it may have received a commission for doing so. In light of this and the well-documented concerns about the sale of PPI policies by agents of GE Capital at this time, it seems to me there's a very strong case to be made that my recollection of events – in essence, that it was recommended I should sign up for this policy [by someone who would be rewarded should I do so] – is likely to be more reliable than that of a Santander complaint handler who, plainly, was not there at the time.

 

Again, I'd be interested to her whether my fellow CAGers think there's any merit in this line of attack.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fred_Funk,

 

I expect that one of the experts will respond to you soon but thought I'd put my thoughts out there.

Santander's rejection is probably just their inital fob off and hope you will go way.

As you are sure that it was missold, I think you should respond by countering their reasons for rejecting.

I feel that this is the line that you need to concentrate on.

It may help if you list here, the reasons why it was missold and their reasons for rejecting. This would help the experts and give them a better understanding of the situation.

Sometimes it's better to concentrate on one or two reasons for mis-selling rather than all of them.

I've been involved with a couple of long battles and the one thing I've learnt is not to give in and keep on fighting.

 

Jedicris

REMEMBER! Hunger is the enemy - NOT the hungry!

Link to post
Share on other sites

[1] Your link suggests the Plevin judgement relied on Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which was inserted by the Consumer Credit Act 2006. Given my PPI policy dates from the 1990s, it seems unlikely this legislation applies to my policy, unless, that is, there's any scope for it to be applied retrospectively. Any thoughts anyone might have on this would be very welcome.

 

[2]At the same time, Santander's correspondence makes it very clear the sale of the policy involved an undisclosed commission and, it seems to me, this could be helpful –*Santander maintain the sale was non-advised, yet concede the shop assistant who sold it may have received a commission for doing so. In light of this and the well-documented concerns about the sale of PPI policies by agents of GE Capital at this time, it seems to me there's a very strong case to be made that my recollection of events – in essence, that it was recommended I should sign up for this policy [by someone who would be rewarded should I do so] – is likely to be more reliable than that of a Santander complaint handler who, plainly, was not there at the time.

 

1) Section 140A is applied retrospectively in some cases. If your credit agreement was entered into before April 2007, which is when S140A kicked in, the unfair relationship issues would only be relevant if the agreement was still in place in April 2008 - which is when the legislation began to apply regardless of when the agreement was entered into.

 

2) The sale of your policy was probably not an advised sale by the FCA definition. A advised sale would be one where the advisor asks certain questions about your circumstances before recommending a certain policy. Advisors would need to be qualified to do this, since they are giving financial advice. A sale being categorised as "advised" results in a slightly higher bar being set for the business. Where the sale is non advised, they just have to show that information about the policy was given to let you make your own mind up. Where as in an advised sale, they have to show that clear information was given, but also that they then recommended a policy which was suitable for you given your circumstances.

 

The sales advisor saying things like "this policy will be good if you end up out of work" or other sales patter wouldn't be enough for the sale to be considered a recommended sale.

 

I don't think the unfair relationships issue necessarily adds any more weight to your argument. It has been known since the beginning that some staff received a reward for selling PPI. In fact, some businesses made more from the PPI than they did the product they sold it alongside.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...