Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 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

Computers make PPI decisions and write rejection letters


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2247 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

 

Victims of Britain’s biggest mis-selling scandal are having their compensation claims rejected —by computers.

 

Money Mail can reveal that the Financial Ombudsman Service is relying on computer software to decide whether banks should pay redress to people who were flogged payment protection insurance (PPI) alongside their credit cards or loans.

 

We have seen documents in which senior figures at the Ombudsman, which settles disputes between banks and customers, state that PPI case documents are fed into a computer programme which generates a ‘suggested outcome’.

 

They admit that although staff can make decisions on whether to force banks to pay redress, they almost always use the verdict spewed out by the computer.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-5653351/Computers-decide-PPI-victims-payout-explosive-documents-show.html#ixzz5DfSdNhqs

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-5653351/Computers-decide-PPI-victims-payout-explosive-documents-show.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

I happen to know this is true because I am involved in my own PPI claim – finally after many years. I'll be writing about it on the forum during the next few months. It's against Lloyds bank.

 

Anyway, my claim has eventually gone to the FOS and I have to say that it has been badly handled. But in terms of the template letters, the adjudicator inadvertently sent me a blank template with nothing filled in – simply the prompts. I knew immediately that this was part of the FOS Navigator system.

 

It was sent to me using my FOS "secure" mailbox. Amazingly I went to access the "secure" mailbox today and it had been emptied of the template and also one or two other messages.

 

I feel that this is interference with my personal data and I think it is an extremely serious breach.

 

I'm not surprised that they are slack and cavalier about the way they have started to handle their decision-making process – but I am extremely shocked that they can enter the someone's secure mailbox and then delete messages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I happen to know this is true because I am involved in my own PPI claim – finally after many years. I'll be writing about it on the forum during the next few months. It's against Lloyds bank.

 

Anyway, my claim has eventually gone to the FOS and I have to say that it has been badly handled. But in terms of the template letters, the adjudicator inadvertently sent me a blank template with nothing filled in – simply the prompts. I knew immediately that this was part of the FOS Navigator system.

 

It was sent to me using my FOS "secure" mailbox. Amazingly I went to access the "secure" mailbox today and it had been emptied of the template and also one or two other messages.

 

I feel that this is interference with my personal data and I think it is an extremely serious breach.

 

I'm not surprised that they are slack and cavalier about the way they have started to handle their decision-making process – but I am extremely shocked that they can enter the someone's secure mailbox and then delete messages.

 

Definitely a breach as they have obligations with regards automated decision making which obviously they have not complied with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their story is that the Navigator software doesn't make decisions. It simply "suggests" outcomes. However the whistleblower has said that in practice he/she has never come across a single case where the adjudicator has rejected the decision made by the computer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn’t matter. They are making a decision based purely on the automated processing and therefore need to comply with the relevant sections of the DPA. The GDPR will cause them to evaluate it and they will have to change their procedures I predict.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...