Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Hairychris21 Vs CoOp bank PPI (reidnet Thankyou!)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6240 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

Firstly I'd like to say thanks to reidnet, who if he hadn't of made public his successes in the PPI arena, I wouldn't have thought this worth trying.

 

Why we're claiming: A fairly common story; My other half tok out a small overdraft consolidation loan of £3k a couple of years ago. Talking to her about it fairly recently, it turns out that she was given the distinct impression that she would not be able to have the loan unless she took out PPI. She's in a stable public sector job with excellent sickness benifits and no real danger of ever beeing made redundant...

 

This is a clear case of miss selling I guess. However, Do we need to prove it? because that would be nigh on impossible; hust my other halfs word against theirs...

 

I sent off the preliminary complaint, (a modified reidnet special, thanks again) stating the case clearly, and got back a fairly standard letter saying sorry you're unhappy... should have checked the small print... it would have been explained at the time etc. tough s**t basically.

 

What now? Our complaint remains the same, do I just write back restating it and ask for it to be escalated? or Do I send an LBA kind of a thing?

 

reidnet, where's that thread about your lloyds PPI success gone mate, and will it be coming back, your letters were an excellent resource!

 

Thanks for any help or advice forthcoming, HC

Cynical? Realistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris,

Im sure I answered this in the PM's..But the past few days have been a bit frantic..lol along with having a new puppy here too I could do with an extra pair of eyes on the back of my head.

 

I would send LBA to them and see what response you get to that,

 

For the Time being My Lloyds thread will not be comming back ( Long story..lol ) But as soon as I have time I will transpose some of the letters as templates.

 

Ian

Lloyds TSB -PPI - Full refund . 05/09/06 :D:p (As Seen on TV) :p

Halifax settled in Full.. :D 22/09/06

TSB First Claim SETTLED IN FULL 19/10/06 :D

Second Claim to Lloyds TSB - Settled in Full

Firstplus - early settlement interest charges - Challenged the use of the rule of 78 - SETTLED IN FULL 12/1/07

PPI - GE Money / Purpleloans / Firstplus - Now Settled after 1 year long hard fight.

 

 

 

If my post has helped you, please click the scales! :grin:

 

Anything said is my opinion and how I understand the law, always consult professional legal advice before taking something to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ian, yes you did cover that ground in the PM, but I'd posted this before I PM'd you! lol

 

Just thought I'd post my second letter to co-operative bank, its not quite an LBA because I want to exhaust their 'internal Complaints Procedure' before i go the MCOL route. Many thanks to Reidnet who's LBA this is a modified version of:

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

I am writing to request that my complaint be escalated in line with the Bank’s internal complaint procedure. I am very unhappy at your initial response to my communications with yourselves, as I feel strongly that I have been mis-sold PPP, and that you have no concern whatsoever at this.

 

As stated in my previous correspondence dated 1st February 2007, this policy was mis-sold to me by a member of your staff at a time when I was in financial difficulties, and I was pressurised to take the policy on the understanding that otherwise the loan would not be approved.

 

My request is for the refund of the whole policy cost of £524.85 plus interest of £128.59 making a total of £653.44. Over the period of the loan the policy will have cost me £653.44. I will continue to pay the loan at the agreed monthly figure until the end of its term.

 

This policy was sold in a deceitful manner by a member of your staff and this matter has also been discussed with the FSA and a complaint form has been filled out for the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

I would like to bring to your attention the FSA principles of ‘Treating customers fairly – towards fair outcomes for consumers’.

 

Principle 7 “A Firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading”.

 

Principle 9 “A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment”.

 

I would also draw your attention to the terms of the contract which you agreed to at the time that I opened my account. It is an implied term of that contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully and in a manner which complies with UK law.

 

I feel that in relation to the above points, your bank has been sorely lacking in this instance.

 

I require a refund in the form of a cheque for the sum of £653.44

 

I require repayment in full of this money and if I do not receive this refund within 14 days I will be submitting the completed complaint form regarding this matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service forthwith.

 

Shortly afterwards I will also be considering bringing a claim for the stated amount in my local county court.

 

 

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Hairychris21 xxx

 

 

What do you think?

 

I sent it recorded delivery as well, have learnt from previous experience that troublesome correspondence that isn't sent this way may often get filed in the small round cabinet...

Cynical? Realistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris,

Nice letter..lol Lets se what they say to that one.. I still have had no word from GE , I have been away in London this week and Just arrived back. I am on Holidays next week and will start on GE,s Solicitor on Monday..lol

 

Ian

Lloyds TSB -PPI - Full refund . 05/09/06 :D:p (As Seen on TV) :p

Halifax settled in Full.. :D 22/09/06

TSB First Claim SETTLED IN FULL 19/10/06 :D

Second Claim to Lloyds TSB - Settled in Full

Firstplus - early settlement interest charges - Challenged the use of the rule of 78 - SETTLED IN FULL 12/1/07

PPI - GE Money / Purpleloans / Firstplus - Now Settled after 1 year long hard fight.

 

 

 

If my post has helped you, please click the scales! :grin:

 

Anything said is my opinion and how I understand the law, always consult professional legal advice before taking something to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Had a reply to my last letter, basically sticking to their guns. They state:

 

'The (diclosure) script that would have been read out to you states that 'we recommend that you take optional protection to cover you against accident, sickness and unemployment''

 

and:

 

'I must advise you that no refund will be given as the Bank has acted appropriately and in accordance with regulations set by the FSA'

 

My other half has no memory of anyone saying the above 'script' to her, and vividly recalls being led to believe that her loan application would not have been accepted if she had not accepted the PPI.

 

I'm going to write to them and ask for evidence that what they say should happen actually did happen in her case.

Cynical? Realistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a reply to my last letter, basically sticking to their guns. They state:

 

'The (diclosure) script that would have been read out to you states that 'we recommend that you take optional protection to cover you against accident, sickness and unemployment''

 

and:

 

'I must advise you that no refund will be given as the Bank has acted appropriately and in accordance with regulations set by the FSA'

 

My other half has no memory of anyone saying the above 'script' to her, and vividly recalls being led to believe that her loan application would not have been accepted if she had not accepted the PPI.

 

I'm going to write to them and ask for evidence that what they say should happen actually did happen in her case.

 

Hello,

 

TheFsa is undertaking investigations regarding the ppi market

 

This PPI enforcement action follows the publication of the FSA's latest work into the PPI market last week which found that sellers are still not treating customers fairly. The key findings included:

  • Firms are not giving customers clear information during the sales conversation;
  • Customers are still not being made fully aware that there may be parts of the policy under which they cannot claim; and
  • Where customers are sold single premium policies, this is not always done with the best interests of the customer in mind.

MMMMmmm!!!!!!!

 

They are also currently fining companies and I do believe they are only the tip of the iceberg. When someone came up with the idea of rip-off ppi. they all jumped on the wagon. Just watch this space over the next few months.

 

Have a look at the FSA Website it does make good reading.

 

These companies have to deny it was mis-sold, because if they admit it. They will open the flood gates.

If any of my posts are helpful, please feel free to click my scales. All information is given as my opinion only, based on my own personal experiences. I have no legal training, but have educated myself in aspects of consumer legislation. My motto "NEVER GIVE IN, NEVER SURRENDER", THERE IS A WAR ON YOU KNOW

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...