Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This the reply from RAC, we did not get a receipt, and had no idea about a trade sale. The sales invoice seems to have been created later to satisfy the RAC as there are no signatures on it, the HPI check shows it was carried out on 7.4.2021!   I can confirm we have been in contact with the selling dealership, Hills of Lymington also known as Hills Prestige and they have provided us with a copy of the vehicle sales invoice which shows that the vehicle was purchased as a trade sale, I have attached this for you. The dealership have also advised us that they were not aware of any accident damage to the vehicle and provided a copy of the HPI report, which is also attached.   Unfortunately, we are unable to continue with our ADR Service, as this does not apply to vehicles purchased through a trade sale.   I understand this was not the response you were hoping for, but unfortunately, we are unable to assist you further in this instance. I would recommend seeking legal advice for guidance on what your next steps would be.
    • Yes of course. That's the only way to go. The county court system in this country is excellent and the ease Of access is probably the best in the world.   However, this is not something you want to rush into. We need to do some careful preparation. It won't take very long but we need to make sure that we have all the information together and also that you understand the steps involved in bringing a claim in the county court. It's pretty straightforward but it will make you much more confident if you understand the route rather than have to ask us every step of the way.   Please start reading up the steps in bringing a small claim in the county court. Although I have referred you to the small claims process, there isn't a huge amount of difference when you get things going. We have pretty well all of the information you need on this website.     We also need to understand what further information you should put together if any. I would be especially interested to understand why the RAC have knocked you back.   Please monitor for a further reply tomorrow          
    • wow, thank you so much for such a comprehensive reply, the vehicle has thrown up some engine management issues, warning lights etc which have been cleared with a code reader, likely to return though.   I have been told that I could use 'Money Claims Online', what do you think? Its a new service I believe. I don't think there is such an opportunity for obfuscation and costs are limited to 4.5% of the value of the claim, I think!
    • Sorry DX my over excitement or annoyance. On this bank of Scotland credit... Taken out 2003 defaulted and sold to Cabot around 2006. Been paying them £5 a month upto July 2016. Then on advice...thanks DX...CCA to them. Normal response no information available,will be in touch again in 40 days. Out of the blue Jan 2021 reiterated balance outstanding. I explained about my CCA request back in 2016 and they could not find anything. They then advised they would investigate and to give them 16 weeks. Out of curiosity today rang them..about 15 weeks. Advised they had a an agreement for the card. As yet nothing in the post. Hope that makes more sense🙂 Will post up correspondence...if received
    • Thanks BankFodder for your help. I will just wait for mediation process to begin and then take it from there, using the advice and guidance on how to go about mediation from previous cases in this forum.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Second M&S PPI form


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1184 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

Has anyone been asked to fill in a second full PPI questionnaire after completing their online form? I rang them up about this and they said that the posted questionnaire had some additional questions and this would help them to assess the complaint.

 

I'm naturally concerned that this is another delaying tactic as they do seem to be going at a glacial pace. I also wonder whether they're looking for differences between the online submission (that they don't send you a copy of) and the new form.

 

On balance I don't think I'll bother to spend another half hour providing them with information that I've already sent them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I always use the FOS customer questionnaire

 

as bank forms tend to have loaded questions written in their favour.

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

seminole

if a complaint goes to the fos, then a fos form wld usually be required anyway. so, as said, shld just do a fos form in the first place (if a form is required). the fos form is acceptable prior.

if doing things online first, try and get a screen shot/print of each page before submission for own records

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I've had a reply and a settlement offer of £45.55!

This is premiums of £6.85 plus interest.

 

I had the card from 1986 to around 2002.

Having spoken to M&S they claim to not have any records going back before 2000

but they've somehow based the offer on an average account balance.

 

If I remember correctly I only had a credit limit of £750 on the card but I was running close to this for most of the nineties.

 

Am I wrong to smell a bit of a rat here?

They've now re-opened my complaint and are sending me more detailed calculations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

see what the calcs breakdown says, take it from there.

it looks like they have done a 'reconstruction' for prior to 2000.

the fos site has details about being allowed to do a recon if no contrary data is available,

and also the pdf in sticky link which has eg's of calculations. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?305682-FSA-Handbook

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this. I read elsewhere about them reconstructing on old accounts. My subject access request should tease out what data they actually hold. I find it hard to believe that they disposed of everything before 2000 as we know from the old bank charges claims that financial institutions tend to keep very old records albeit not necessarily in computer systems.

 

Follow up email to my telephone conversation.

 

Your Ref:

CHARGECARD ACCOUNT NUMBER:

 

Dear Sir

Following my discussion with your PPI complaints team I write to reject your full and final settlement offer.

 

You have accepted that I had a chargecard account with you from 1986.

I believe that the account was closed around 2001.

 

You have also accepted that I had PPI policy on the account.

 

On this basis I find it hard to accept that in total I paid £6.85 in premiums.

 

From research I understand that your PPI charge was around 70 pence per £100 of outstanding balance.

 

I believe that the credit limit on the account was £750 for most of the agreement and I certainly had a rolling balance for most of the late nineties.

 

Your PPI complaints team agreed to re-open my complaint and send me details of the PPI calculation.

 

It would have been helpful if this could have been sent with your full and final offer as it will apparently take you another four weeks to provide it.

 

In addition to your calculations please also send me all details that you hold about this account including:

date it was opened,

the account opening form,

credit limits applicable throughout the term of the agreement,

monthly account balances throughout the term of the agreement,

PPI premiums paid throughout the term of the agreement

and any other information you hold about me in your systems.

 

Please treat this as a subject access request under the Data Protection Act.

I would remind you that a subject access request is not restricted to records held in computer systems and includes data held on microfiche, scanned documents etc.

Please let me know if you require payment of the statutory fee for this data.

Yours faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

thats the thing; whether a bank is being entirely accurate when saying they don't have records/info prior to x date.

i bet most do somewhere; archived, in storage, microfiche, etc.

but, the fos allows them to 'recon' if deemed justified.

if you can get any data/info to contradict their calcs in your favour

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have form on this.

 

In the bank charges heyday I issued DPA proceedings against Santander as they claimed to not have certain data.

They miraculously found it.

 

I've just done a quick calculation.

 

If the card balance was half the credit limit throughout the term and they charged 70p per £100 of debt each month

, then the total amount recoverable including simple interest at 8% would be almost £2,600.

 

Whilst I can't remember what the balance was in the eighties

I know that I was running every credit card

I had at its credit limit for most of 1995 to 2000 and so I don't think the calculation is way off.

 

Even if it was quartered it's still a hell of a lot more that what M&S has "reconstructed".

Link to post
Share on other sites

its a bit more than that;

things like what payments were made

(which wld have paid off the premium for that month,

and therefore no accrued interest for that particular premium);

 

was there an outstanding balance,

and how much each month,

what were the monthly payments in,

when was it closed,

what was the balance when it was closed,

wld've the likely payment in covered the premium for that month, etc.

it's all in the fos info, and that pdf.

 

with yours there is 4 years of no records, thats the prob.

 

i guess they are going by what happened from 00 to 02.

 

i've also been trying to work out a banks partial recon for one and its not so straightforward as it seems.

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

use our FOSCISHEET.

 

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
  • 2 months later...

Well this has moved on but not very satisfactorily.

 

The Ombudman has told me that, based on information from Allianz (M&Ss insurer), the PPI account was closed in January 1990 and that they have no records prior to that date.

 

In other words there is a record of one month's PPI premium being paid and any records before that have been destroyed.

 

I find this remarkably coincidental.

 

I have asked the Ombudsman for the evidence supplied to them of the PPI cancellation

they say I will have to make a subject access request.

 

I also asked them for confirmation the M&S/ Allianz don't have any records prior to January 1990.

 

They seem a bit insulted that I have even asked the question.

 

Finally I asked whether M&S/ Allianz have ever produced records prior to January 1990 when it suited them to do so.

 

They ignored that question.

 

I am a bit surprised and annoyed by the Ombudsman's evasiveness.

 

However, I think I'll go ahead with the subject access request.

 

I'm extremely interested to know whether they have any offline records and also when the decision was made to destroy pre January 1990 transaction details.

 

I suspect that this will end up the Information Commissioner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
... I have asked the Ombudsman for the evidence supplied to them of the PPI cancellation but they say I will have to make a subject access request.

 

I am a bit surprised and annoyed by the Ombudsman's evasiveness. However, I think I'll go ahead with the subject access request. r.

maybe things have changed since, but when i wanted a copy of fos file of what a creditor had sent in, i just asked the adjudicator for a copy of their file and they obliged.

but, if you have to to do a dsar....

:)

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ombs or adjudicator?

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

then why bother

goto the ombs himself

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

sorry ford was meant for semi

 

sounds like enough time has been spent with a brainless adjudicator meself

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...