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
      • 160 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
  • Recommended Topics

Egg Loans and Credit Card PPI - advice needed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2373 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 there,

 

I am hoping someone can help me

- I tried unsuccessfully in Sept 2015 with Egg to get PPI back on 3 loan accounts and a credit card.

 

These were taken out in 2004 and ran for many years before I paid them off

- I believe early 2010.

 

My reason is a simple one

- I was diagnosed with Ulcerative Colitis in 1992 which is a lifelong chronic disease

 

- I've had many operations and hospital stays/visits over the years,

my last visit being as recent as 2 years ago.

 

Certainly on the last loan, it was done on the phone and I was told I couldn't have the loan without taking out the insurance. I was stuck and therefore had to take it.

 

The other applications were online at the time and I believe I never selected this product at all

- at that time,

these types of things were pointless for me as I couldn't get cover for the one thing I was always ill with.

 

I dragged out the paperwork again last night and have 2 separate rejection letters from them

- one relating to the loan accounts and

one relating to the credit card

- both from Canada Square.

 

There is a glaring error on both which I am hoping will help me resurrect or at least re-submit.

 

Both letters refer to 'my questionnaire'

- the issue is I never filled one in

- I sent a hand written letter to them with approx 3 or 4 sentences.

 

They asked me to verify identity which was fine and then the next paperwork was we are looking at your case,

followed by a rejection letter for both several weeks later.

 

Does anyone think this is worth pursuing with them to re-open on the basis I did not fill in a questionnaire and therefore they did not have the required information to make an informed decision?

 

I am planning on putting a letter together later today saying just that,

but would like to post it here later on for advice to see if I have done it right.

 

Any advice or thoughts are truly welcome - I'm so ill at the moment, so any money I can get from anywhere would really help me out.

 

Okay - this is the letter that I have come up with - any advice gratefully received;

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I am writing to you to request that my original claim reference numbers COM/261626/2015 and COM/071766/2014 are re-opened based on the following information;

 

No questionnaire was ever provided to me to complete.

You refer in your letters dated 17th and 21st September 2015 on both claims to ‘your questionnaire’ implying I completed one - which I did not.

The information I provided you in my original letter dated July 2015 provided minimal information and as such you would not have had all information required to make an accurate assessment of my case. This would have included the following items being missing from my claim;

Employment history and benefits available from those employers - of which I can provide proof.

Details of my existing Medical condition - for which I can provide extensive documentation and proof.

Your staff member who completed the questionnaire without my knowledge has failed me as a customer. I was not aware of this questionnaire at any point, I have no visibility of the contents of this questionnaire.

Since vital information was missing from your assessment or was provided incorrectly by a member of your staff, it has distorted the outcome of your decision and should be reviewed as a matter of urgency.

Based on the above information, I am convinced that I have not been treated fairly by your Company in this matter at all.

 

Based on the information above, I insist that these cases are reviewed by a responsible person who can deal with the matter correctly and ascertain all the facts before making any decision. I am willing to provide both a completed questionnaire and further documentation that may be required by yourselves to review this matter accurately.

 

To ensure that this matter is dealt with to my satisfaction, a copy of this letter has been sent to your CEO by signed for post;

 

Mr Andrew Nettleton

Citigroup Centre,

Canada Square,

London

E14 5LB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget the letter pointless

Send them a completed FOS customer questionnaire

For each account

 

Speculative letters always get a fob off

FOS CQ does not

  • Confused 1

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...