Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Ae - thanks for your interest.  It's quite overwhelming to keep reiterating the background.  I've lived through a lot and put a lot behind me.  There is one property - that has unresolved civil litigation.  It's been subject to lots of litigation - as explained (LH/FH).  I also explained the lender could've sold it immediately.  They chose not to.  The crux of the remaining litigation is focused on the steps they took and why I shouldn't be liable for their failures.  My counterclaim raises issues of criminality.  I'm very tired.  Exhausted with looking backwards.  The trial proceedings are at their end - I am now only trying to figure if I have an alternative angle by way of a separate complaint or claim v receiver AND how I can force a sale before the issue would be dealt with at trial.  (Aside: i'm still considering if I can complain v broker and need to follow up with sra on former lawyer negligence) I'm considering Bazza's comment about fmv - 
    • What is the £3500 debt based on, estimated or actual readings? You may have all been paying an amount each month by direct debit but that may not have covered your usage so you still owe a debt.  If you are joint tenants for the property, all five of you have joint and several liability for any debt owed so you alone can be pursued for the full amount or they can pursue all of you for the full amount.  You need to find out whether or not British Gas has billed you correctly and the amount claimed is correct. 
    • The charging order is a red herring. If the IVA fails because payments are stopped, the IVA practitioner can bankrupt the sister. Depending on the amount of equity in the property, if it's quite high, that's a very likely outcome. Advising the sister to just stop making payments is absolutely terrible advice.
    • Bazza - fair market value is definitely contentious.  Your comment has made me realise I must consider it in detail over the last few years alongside the steps lender/ receiver took. I've made a start
    • could might oh what by a useless restriction k. people should never enter into IVA's in the 1st place 90% goes on their fees. and all the debts are consumer ones too...    
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5329 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

Not sure how to proceed but story so far :

 

April - New bike for hubby meant ammending existing policy but pay insurance by direct debit so nothing for us to do cos increase in premium will be reflected in an increased DD payment.

 

May 15th - £96.04 taken from bank account by debit card. Rang Bennetts who said that the payment did not refer to his policy & asked us to fax proof of this debit to my account. Fax sent same day.

 

May 18th - no response from Bennetts so rang again. Had to resend fax & got promises of investigation into what is going on.

 

On & on & on this has been going.

 

Turns out that I paid someones insurance by card a year ago cos they didn't have debit card of their own. His policy is now due for renewal so Bennetts wrote to him & advised that they would be claiming payment from account that paid it last year & that he should notify them if this wasn't correct.

 

Yes, you've guessed it- he didn't tell them so I have paid his insurance through no desire of my own. I am no longer in contact with this guy so cannot reclaim the money from him!

 

What can I do? I've phoned & just got useless promises, I've written a complaint & sent it by recorded delivery but I just want my money back & I want to know whether it is lawful for a company to keep my bank details on file, even though the policy doesn't relate to me, my family or my address!

 

Please help if you can.

 

Kathy

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be able to claim money back via your bank. If the payment was based on an annuel direct debit then your covered by the guarentee. otherwise you could do a charge back if this was via debit or Credit card ( not sure if this would cost you anything)

 

Bennetts should then take the matter up with the policy holder and chase them for the premium

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reply but I am loath to ask my bank to do this since it wasn't their mistake in the 1st place & I feel that it lets Bennetts off the hook a bit too easily. If all else fails, I will have to ask them to do that though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed, however from my experience it would be quicker!

 

Bennetts may not have being aware that they couldn't again use your bank details ( as you state they wrote out to policy holder and advised what would happen) I know this is unfair on you, however many companys do and can hold your details, the original agreement with the pholder may have advised this at inception and certainly on the renewal documents.

 

The policyholder is the person at fault as insurers have to act on upmost goodfaith.

 

I would contact your bank, I understand why you don't want too however in my opinion ( and 8 years call centre insurance knowledge) this would be the quickest way for you to get what you want. Bennetts would then contact the policy holder regarding the debt and deal with that issue seperatley.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main issue here to me is that Bennetts took a payment from your account for an insurance policy in someone elses name. They shouldn't have taken it without contacting you for your authority. You will need to inform the bank as a first step as I suspect trying to get it resolved by Bennetts will be a long process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

I'm sorry to hear of your complaint. This company should be avoided at all costs, I made the mistake of taking out a policy last year and sorely regret it. They renewed my policy without asking and then charged me £20 to cancel it. If that wasn't bad enough they then took a further £30 and can't explain why or what they will do about it. Calls to them cost a premium (0844), they're creaming it all round. Beware Bennetts!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
I'm sorry to hear of your complaint. This company should be avoided at all costs, I made the mistake of taking out a policy last year and sorely regret it. They renewed my policy without asking and then charged me £20 to cancel it. If that wasn't bad enough they then took a further £30 and can't explain why or what they will do about it. Calls to them cost a premium (0844), they're creaming it all round. Beware Bennetts!

 

They have done exactly the same to me, I can shed some light on the charges.

 

The £30 is a 'renewal fee' that they essentially fine their renewing customers with by hiding it within their quote. If you check the breakdown of your total charge you will see that the items detailed do not add up to the total. This is similar to a restaurant deliberately adding up a customer's bill incorrectly in order to overcharge them. If you had called Bennett's up to say that their total charge is not competitive and you won't be renewing, they would have removed this hidden charge. Does that sound fair? No :-x

 

They charge a cancellation fee of £20 within the 'cooling off' period, £30 afterwards. Is that fair when the policy has been renewed without your knowledge and you have been charged without giving consent? No :-x:-x:-x

 

Finally Bennett's will claim that you consented to automatically renewing your policy in perpetuity because when you bought the policy you answered 'yes' to their question along the lines of 'When your policy is approaching expiry may we obtain updated quotes and write to you offering continuing cover?'. Is that the same question as 'Do you want to automatically renew your policy with us'? No :-x:-x:-x:-x:-x!! I am minded to refer them to the ombudsman over this issue in particular and will have a good read of the material on this site to assist in my doing so.

 

In the meantime I whole-heartedly agree with your recommendation for all consumers to BEWARE BENNETT's :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...