Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No Andy, I'll scan, redact and upload later today. So the court sent me 2 letters, same envelope and stapled together but with different dates!. 1. N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, stating: UPON considering the papers herein IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is listed for an attended hearing 25 May....... at which court will consider allocation..  etc   2. N24 Notice of PTR/Adjnd/Restored/Hrg/Management conference TAKE NOTICE that the hearing will take place on 24 May at....... When you should attend 30 minutes has been allowed for the Hearing   No other instructions anywhere in the envelope or on the letters. Do I attend both?
    • Then leave it just proceed with the claim( strike out/SJ application are risky).....the defendant will not be permitted to rely on written evidence (documented) only verbally as they failed to comply with the N157 (unless they have filed with the court and failed to serve you a copy) ?  
    • Ive asked court to strike out for non compliance but they came back and said needs £275 application fee and formal n244  
    • Did the N24 invite either party to submit a statement ?
    • Thanks for responding Andy, that was my understanding when receiving the N24, mild panic when I got Link's WS for the date though! not sure why they would send me theirs..
  • 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

Help/advice regarding Shop Direct (Littlewoods) PPI reply


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1593 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’m hoping you can help me again.

 

Here is the info:

ShopDirect (Littlewoods) response to my complaint/enquiry:

“Thank you for contacting us about the concerns that you Have with the sale of your PPI policy.

According to our records, there is no evidence that PPI has ever been applied.

 

Please find enclosed a selection of statements from different trading periods in your account history.

The statements  provided to evidence that no PPI has ever been applied to your account are in different formats due to system migration/and or the statement archiving process.

 

If PPI had been applied to the account this would show as a 111G/111 adjustment or the name of the PPI product. 

 

If you dispute our findings please contact us highlighting any evidence to the contrary, quoting the reference number at the top of this letter.

 

As our records indicate that you have not held a PPI product with us, we are unable to consider your concerns as a complaint”                      

 

Ok, so here are my points I want to discuss:          

1) the information they provided is pretty vague/unintelligible to be honest.

It’s just a few screenshots of the Littlewoods account in different accounting periods.

 

It shows transactions that were made for three different accounting periods I.e July 1999, December 2002 and July 2006.

It also shows credit limits, commission information/comm. paid last tax year, arrears, sched paid, min paid, balance b/f and cf etc.

 

I don’t believe this information is relevant to my original request I.e copy of the original agreement with Littlewoods.

As I understand, when an organisation sends you SAR information , it should be presented in a way that is easy for the customer to understand.

 

I have worked in accounts/finance before, but the information doesn’t really mean too much unless you work in the organisation yourself.

So I’m obviously going to write back, as I’m not happy with what they have provided.

I mean, how do I know that 111G/111 means that  PPI was included?

 

What do you think I should say in the reply?

P.S this was my mother’s account and she was constantly using this account, spending £1000s over many years, so I really believe there’s a good chance she paid PPI.

Kind regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

PPI on shop direct accounts for that period was very rare

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, thanks for the info!  So what period was PPI more common for Littlewoods  then? According to the info received, it seems the account started in 1999 (it says “statement 1”) and ended some time in the mid/late 2000s (the latest statement  they show is 2006 I.e “statement 92”, but I’m pretty sure my mother had it for a some years after this date). Kind regards 

Link to post
Share on other sites

rarely seen PPI added later on an existing account too.

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 guys, does anyone know who was/were the underwriter(s) for Littlewoods/Shop Direct from 1999 to 2006? I understand that Aviva is the current underwriter, but not sure if they were before. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi guys,

I’ve got my mother’s Littlewoods statements  (archive statements) via a SAR 

 

I can see there is a line called “BNPL ABC BAL” which is Buy Now Pay Later Agents Balance Care Balance

 

I.e

BNPL= Buy Now Pay Later.

ABC=Agents Balance Care BAL=Balance.

 

I’ve looked on some posts on this website and other sites, and it seems that “Agents Balance Care” was a kind of PPI.

 

In my mother’s case, is BNPL ABC BAL a form of PPI?

 

It varied each month from a few hundred, to £50 odd and then sometimes zero.

 

Any help/advice  would  be greatly appreciated

 

. Kind regards 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with what's posted on another certain consumer website...

knock up a statint spreadsheet and FOS CQ for it and put in a claim when the time comes.

 

 

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

  • 4 weeks later...

read like threads?

part of cag is self help 

 

also if you happen to look below

what do to and where to get the required info is in my sig below

 

 

 

look down

 

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

  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...