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

Paintball v BISL ***WON***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4768 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

I'm in the process of making my first ever claim on a household insurance policy. I'm currently with Budget Insurance Services.

 

As I was looking at the teeny tiny writing on the policy document, I noticed that PPI had been added on the initial policy and on the policy renewal document.

 

I have no recollection of having had any discussion about the inclusion of PPI during the initial sales talk with BISL, and certainly have no documentaion showing that the organisation asked me if I wished to continue with it on renewing the policy!!

 

So, off to the People's Post Office today with my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request). :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck Painty;)

aa

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

------------------------------------------------

Bank charge successes:

Halifax - Full settlement incl interest.

HSBC - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 75% of claim.

RBS - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 70% of claim.

2 ongoing claims for bank charges with HSBC with more to come. (Supreme Court ruling could have upset these claims) They did :mad:

PPI Successes

PPI 4 settlements on 9 loans. FOS involvement on 7 added on the 8 % Statutory interest another 30% to both.

2 claims settled in full with LV without FOS involvement.

2 claims settled in full with HSBC without FOS involvement

 

PPI Claims ongoing with:

Cap one Now with the FOS

Barclays. Paid up today 24/04/10 cheque received for over £4,500 and in the bank.

LTSB still have to decide on this as their SAR production was abysmal. Papers data mixed up documents missing etc

 

1 Complaint not upheld by FOS they said it was ICO issue. Complaint upheld by ICO. See this..

Post 290 from

***RBS PPI Claim Long fight but, WON***

 

Please do not PM me for advice as it may be sometime before I can respond.

 

Keep at them. Do not give way and do not accept all they tell you, they will delay and stall for as long as they can to prevent repaying you your mis-sold PPI.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi all :)

 

I received a letter today rom BISL informing me that they are sorry to hear that I'm unhappy and that they will be looking into my complaint which they anticipate will take four weeks. There is no mention of cancellation of the PPI element of my policy as I spcifically requested, so I'll be replying stating that unless they do so immediately and acknowledge in writing that this has been done, they are in further breach of FSA regulations.

 

The letter is a standard reply and contains a separate sheet on their 'complaints procedure' which I decline to recognise as it does respond to the specific allegation I have made, that PPI was added to my insurance policy without my knowledge or consent.

 

If anyone would like to see the letter I've written (if it helps in a claim)then I'm happy to post it up.

 

Cheers me dears ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Luck with this ill toss back that donut if yah win!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Regards

 

Leon

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

BISL complied with my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request). I have prepared a response requesting return of PPI payments with my case for mis-selling of PPI.

 

Guess what? BISL have revised my policy to include an increase in the amount that I pay for making monthly payments of my insurance from £1.53 to £4.15 per month. This is in direct proportion to the loss in PPI monthly payment, and as they term it, results from "a change that I have made to my policy". :confused:

 

This is not a "change", this is cancellation of a non compulsory product BISL and they do not have the right to recoup the loss of the monthly amount that they would have taken from me by making revisions to my policy which they conceal from me by NOT sending me a revised policy document, but just changing it online, thus hoping perhaps that I wouldn't notice it until the money had gone out of my account?!!!!!

 

This pathetic and shameful activity constitutes 'retaliatory action' and also 'concealment' which I am reporting to the Information Commissioners Office.

 

I will have these individuals for their shoddy practices ... and see them in court.

 

 

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's disgraceful :-x........Go get 'em PB!! - :lol: :lol: xx

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

BISL complied with my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request). I have prepared a response requesting return of PPI payments with my case for mis-selling of PPI.

 

Guess what? BISL have revised my policy to include an increase in the amount that I pay for making monthly payments of my insurance from £1.53 to £4.15 per month. This is in direct proportion to the loss in PPI monthly payment, and as they term it, results from "a change that I have made to my policy". :confused:

 

This is not a "change", this is cancellation of a non compulsory product BISL and they do not have the right to recoup the loss of the monthly amount that they would have taken from me by making revisions to my policy which they conceal from me by NOT sending me a revised policy document, but just changing it online, thus hoping perhaps that I wouldn't notice it until the money had gone out of my account?!!!!!

 

This pathetic and shameful activity constitutes 'retaliatory action' and also 'concealment' which I am reporting to the Information Commissioners Office.

 

I will have these individuals for their shoddy practices ... and see them in court.

 

 

:-)

Ohhh BISL why dont you just give in and avoid the wrath of The Painted one!

 

Glad to see the gloves are on....Im miss my own passion for a good fight. I have been dragging my heels on the welcome thing. But Ill keep a lookout for your thread, always makes for good reading!

 

Stewieeee :D:D:D

 

PS: Florida is booked for 18th Jan :D:D:D

I need to change my avatar..But cant find a good replacement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Received a letter from BISL on 5 December stating that " The policy was set up via the internet [...]. When processing the application on-line, the box for PPI is automatically ticked and if the product is not required, the tick needs to be removed." ete, etc.

 

Well folks, this is contrary to guidelines and industry regulations; if I am truly opting in then the box should NOT be 'pre-populated' ... tut tut BISL.

 

A letter will be on its way ... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

They've really dropped themselves in it there - in writing :)

 

Lovely to see you back PB ...... go get 'em ! :D

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Hello fellow CAGGERS and PPI reclaimers

 

Yesterday, I resurrected this claim following a discussion about pre-populated tick boxes that remove our choice in deciding whether to have PPI or not, when taking out a policy online. This was for a house insurance policy worth a tiny amount.

 

I have sent a request for payment letter giving the company 14 days to respond. I will keep you updated on progress.

 

 

Painty

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...