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

Vauxhall Finance/GMAC (UK) plc regarding PPI


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1682 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 guys,

I would like your help/advice in relation to a letter from a car dealer regarding PPI on my father’s Hire Purchase (Vauxhall van ) from 1990 to 1996.

(FYI-we still have a letter with the agreement number/number plate).              

 

Here is the info from the letter

 

“Firstly, I apologise for the delay in responding to your letters. It has taken time to investigate the matter as fully as we can.

 

The purchase was over 25 years ago and, unsurprisingly, we no longer have paperwork from transactions that long ago.

However, we are confident that the appropriate professionalism was shown by our sales staff at the time and have no reason to doubt this.

We have taken legal advice on the matter as well.

 

Given that the alleged sale was so long ago, it would appear that you are statute barred from bringing any claim against us as it has not been presented within the prescribed period of 6 years in according with the limitation act 1980.

You also requested a DSAR.

After checking all our systems, we can confirm we do not hold any information relating to you”.            

 

My first question about this information is, can I do anything to get more information  from them?

Is their information about the law  correct?

 

Moreover, I have checked the meaning of  the following information 

“We have taken legal advice on the matter as well. Given that the alleged sale was so long ago, it would appear that you are statute barred from bringing any claim against us as it has not been presented within the prescribed period of 6 years in according with the limitation act 1980”, 

 

I’m confused with their reference to “statute barred” and the 6-year timeframe in accordance with the limitation act 1980.

I’ve had a look online, and it seems this is in reference to outstanding debt?.

 

In my father’s case, he paid off the HP in 1996.

Or am I missing something? Here?

 

Kind regards P.S Note that the letter states

 

“APPEAR that you are statute barred”.

 

Are they covering  themselves by using “appear” as opposed to using a word/phrase more concrete?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1st name names.

 

2nd SB runs from when you discovered, or reasonably should have, the mistake.

so not SB'd

 

their legal advice is somewhat lacking however...

they as a financier would never have been regulated at that time anyway.

so your target will be the insurance underwriters I suspect, as they would have been regulated under GISC/API..but if you'll get anywhere as you've missed the 29th deadline with them is another matter.

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.

 

What do you mean by “1st name names”?

I actually wrote to the local dealer and Vauxhall Finance/GMAC (UK) plc (I.e their  name is on our letter from the 90s). 

 

Here is their reply:

we acknowledge receipt of recent correspondence  from you dated 19 August 2019.

Unfortunately, we are unable to provide you with the information that  you have requested.

 

Our data retention policy states that we are only required to keep records for 6 years after the closure of any agreement.

Due to the age of your agreement, this cannot be located within Vauxhall Finance’s internal records.

 

If you have any questions regarding the letter please do not hesitate to contact us on 0000000....              

 

  In regard to the underwriter, I’m not sure who Vauxhall Finance’s  underwriter was from 1990-1996.

However, I found an online article from 1999  (https://www.motortrader.com/general-news/gmac-offers-deals-to-used-car-traders-29-03-1999) which shows that Pinnacle was their  underwriter in 1996.

 

So I actually wrote a letter to them as well, but still awaiting a reply regarding my complaint  (although they have acknowledged my complaint ).

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah pinnacle

good well you've put a claim in so lets see what they say then.

 

 

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

Hi dx, in effect, I have written letters to 3 organisations regarding my father’s Hire Purchase PPI complaint/enquiry  I.e local dealer, Vauxhall finance/GMAC UK plc and Pinnacle/Cardif pinnacle.

 

Do you know if pinnacle was the underwriter for Vauxhall Finance between 1990 to 1996?

 

I asked on the MSE forum and also looked online, but couldn’t find anything. (Except that 1999 article that I mentioned).

 

So I just wrote to pinnacle and thought I had nothing to lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

good idea..

 

from my research too it appears Cardiff/pinnacle were the underwriters for old GMAC agreements.

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

they were not regulated.

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

from them yes

but the PPI underwriters were regulated

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

you are not after that

they will have details they got paid PPI though I bet..

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

yes

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

well to date you haven't got it and have been chasing irrelevant ghosts getting you nowhere when they aren't a target that would refund you anyway as they were not required to be nor were they regulated at the time of sale..

 

if an insurance company underwrote a ppi policy, sold on their behalf for a backhander to the finance co. they would have required those details from the finance co. so ……...

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

Ah right ok, I think I get your point. So let’s wait and see what Pinnacle say then. Thanks again. 

 

Dx, I’ve done a similar thing with my father’s Barclaycard claim

 

I.e I wrote to Barclaycard (they said they can’t find any information)

, but I also wrote to 2 of Barclaycard’s underwriters during the time  my father had the card I.e Monument Insurance and AXA (I’m still awaiting a PPI reply from both; however, both have acknowledged my letter) 

 

. Would the same apply here? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You never know.

1st time i think ive heard of monument insurance

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 Vauxhall Finance/GMAC (UK) plc regarding PPI
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...