Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • And yes, they state their client is EON and that they can return the debt to EON who can either register a default or take me to court. 
    • Thank you. The npower debt was from 2019/2020 until EON took over the account late 2021.   npower had set a DCA on me even though I owed them nothing. I spoke to a customer service agent, following up by email, who confirmed I was in credit . I made a complaint to head office who sent a barrage of emails, changing the amounts each time. According to them, I owed £279.   The debt grew to what it is now as first npower and then EON subsequently failed to put a payment arrangement and direct debit in place to pay off this supposed sum and my ongoing bills.   I was very ill with Covid, struggling in lockdown with a disabled child and informed them of all this.   EON stopped their legal action when I took them to the ombudsman as this was part of my complaint and requested remedy but I have not received a notice of discontinuance.    I would like to set up my own dd to pay them off but am concerned they could still take legal action. I am on a low income and can’t afford to pay them more than a token amount each month.   
    • Thank you guys! @lookinforinfo thank you for the case, it seem to similar with my case which is gold. @Nicky Boy shouldn't be ICO?   Personal data breaches: a guide ICO.ORG.UK   For CAG I found this  The Confidentiality Advisory Group (CAG) is an independent body which provides expert advice on the use of confidential patient information. This includes providing advice to us, the Health Research Authority (HRA) for research uses. It also provides advice to the Secretary of State for Health for non-research uses.
    • HB - yes I agree it is about their paperwork and advice.  I need to be clear in my head what my complaint is.  And what a result looks like for me? (They should never have placed me with the shark with whom I've had all sorts of issues - but I don't think that's my complaint focus -v-  broker) 
    • HB - all sorts of issues have been in court; the main one re repo remains in court, no resolution.  They all stem really from bad advice by broker.  Indeed, but if the Ombudsman is prepared to accept the complaint, it would be about the advice given by the broker and their paperwork, wouldn't it? You seem to be asserting that the problems you've had stem from their bad advice. HB
  • 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
      • 160 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
  • Recommended Topics

FOS claiming 'no connection' between company which sold PPI and Chubb [against which I think complaint should be pursued]


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1038 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

The Financial Ombudsman Service [FOS] has finally come back to me with its thoughts on a long-standing complaint about mis-sold PPI.

 

The policy was sold to me in April 1997, which, as I appreciate, is before policies became regulated by the FCA on January 14, 2005.

 

The policy was sold to me by Cofidis which at the time of the sale was not covered by any of the schemes which were applicable before the FCA regulated the sale of PPI policies so the FOS has asserted that my complaint cannot be pursued there.

 

However, I was already aware of this and my complaint to the FOS was not against Cofidis but the company that provided the cover for the PPI policy, Chubb European Group SE / ACE Insurance S.A. [‘Chubb’] which, at the time of the sale, was covered by one of the schemes that existed before 14.01.05.

 

The FOS acknowledges this but has said: “There does not appear to have been any direct connection between Cofidis and Chubb at the time of the sale. So the only way Chubb would be responsible is if we can establish that Cofidis was acting as an agent of Chubb when selling the PPI.”

 

It is the above with which I struggle to agree, but would appreciate the thoughts of those with more expertise than me in these matters.

 

Firstly, it seems to me there was a direct connection between Cofidis and Chubb. I have supplied the FOS with a copy of the original terms & conditions of the policy [attached here], which is titled ‘Cofidis Limited Protection Plan’ and refers throughout to Chubb. Moreover, it also states that should you wish to cancel the cover at any time you must do so not by writing directly to Chubb but to Cofidis.

 

This being the case, it seems clear to me that, contrary to the FOS’s assertion, there was ‘a direct connection between Cofidis and Chubb at the time of the sale’ and, what is more, it is entirely conceivable that there was an agency relationship between the two.

 

The FOS goes on to make the point that it contacted Chubb which advised that it ‘did not have an agency relationship with Cofidis’. Of course, they would say that wouldn’t they!

More to the point, when I complained to Chubb, contrary to what they subsequently told the FOS, they said: “Unfortunately, due to the passage of time we no longer hold any information to confirm the relationship between Cofidis Insurance and Chubb when the policy was sold.’

 

In these circumstances, it is my belief that as a member of the Association of British Insurers, Chubb had an obligation to act in accordance with ABI guidelines and take measures to ensure that any third party, such as Cofidis, selling PPI policies on its behalf did so in accordance with the industry codes of good practice.

 

Any thoughts gratefully received.

 

Thanks in anticipation
Fred Funk
 

Cofidis Limited Protection Plan-1-merged_compressed (1).pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...