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
      • 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

GE Money Store card - Santander PPI Redress via Axa ex-Financial Insurance Group - is this redress correct


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1813 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

Good morning

 

My claim for misselling on a Dorothy Perkins card taken out in store in 1997 has been upheld by FOS.

 

I have had an offer from Santander and unsure if I should accept or question the calculation.

 

They have stated they have full account details from 2005, prior to that they have details of PPI payments and my spending history.

 

They have reconstructed the account with this info but ask if I have any other statements, in line with FOS rules.

 

I do have some earlier statements and in particular in 2002/3 I had a loan and paid off the account but then used again in a small way from 2004.

 

If they have assumed minimum payments throughout the calculation with no clearing of the balance what effect might this have on the end result, good/bad?.

 

I don't see how they can work out when the account went into credit if they do not have payment history, or does spending history include payment details.

 

Sorry if I'm asking something unanswerable but hoped someone may know. After a 10 year wait and finally getting here I am loathe to accept without checking if possible

 

Many thanks for any help

Edited by goaliesmum
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

whilst the card is in debit you get that months PPI payment back at their int rate compounded till they stopped their int

if the card goes into credit, you get 8% statutory interest until they settle.

 

have YOU got all the statements and info they have via an SAR before you started the claim?

if not you don't stand a chance in hell of calculating if they are correct without them.

 

see my sig below

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

Thanks for the reply.  I've got more info and statements pre 2005 from SAR in 2009  but they were unable back then to provide further back than 2003 and incomplete, some dates missing. 


I do have the statement from 2003 showing the NIL balance and need to check the loft but you are right not ALL back to 1997.

 

I was wondering what impact a NIL statement for a year or 2 made compared to them making assumptions there was a small running balance throughout.

 

Thank again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the small bal includes ppi it will

 

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

ok thanks   When I paid the balance off the account is in credit sooner, much longer and for a larger amount with the ppi payments and associated interest removed. So would think more stat interest would be due.

 

I'll bite the bullet and give them a call.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to read the guide either here below or on the FOS website upon how redress is calculated to understand what you should get back properly.

 

ill explain it briefly later if I have the time.

pers i'd never ring a creditor as it only leads to further confusion

writing only.

 

im actually quite surprised they are even entertaining the refund

as 99% of these cards were EX GE Money cards, and they never refund and your have to go after the underwriters..interesting.

 

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

Thanks dx100uk.

I have read through and will do so again.

 

It is the issue of being in credit and whether it is worth letting them know I have paperwork to back it up.

 

Would their reconstruction of the account get to a credit balance lower, meaning less stat interest added if they have assumed minimum payment and aren’t aware it was paid off in full and nil for a while.

 

Though I suppose the fact there were no ppi premiums would tell them that.

 

So probably just accept it’s correct as the breakdown shows they have followed fos guidelines for redress. 

 

To be clear Santander are handling the claim but redress is being made by Axa who I believe took over Financial Insurance Group

 

thanks again for your time 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the info they have results in more 8% than should be, then pers i'd give them the info

As if you paid and they now knew that

the compound int would be a far greater sum for that period

 

Nice work on FIG now Axa 

Thats will be useful to other GE Money store card reclaimers.

Many are stalled here not finding out the info

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to GE Money Store card - Santander PPI Redress via Axa ex-Financial Insurance Group - is this redress correct
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...