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

Capital One PPI


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4817 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

Just received a response to my letter asking for a full refund of premiums and interest from Capital One.

 

"Following our investigation into your complaint, we are comfortable that the policy was sold appropriately. You clearly indicated that you wanted to purchase the policy, and from the information you gave us you were eligible to do so. We are confident that all appropriate documentation and information was disclosed to you during your application.

 

Therefore, we have decided not to uphold your complaint, we understand that this may be disappointing for you. However, our investigation has shown that you were given enough information to make an informed choice of whether to purchase PPI; you were eligible for the product and chose to purchase the product.

 

Financial regulations require me to advise you that this is my final response in relation to this matter. However, you still have the option to contact the Financial Ombudsman Service within six months from the date of this letter."

 

:???:

 

Any assistance as to my next step would be greatly appreciated. :!:

Link to post
Share on other sites

off to the FOS then!

 

fill in their complaint form on their website

copy all doc and post it off.

 

dx

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

Dont get your hopes up....

 

Ive just gone down a very similar road on behalf of my other half and come up empty :(

 

She ticked the box for PPI on a mailer application form for a Cap One credit card, thinking it would help her be accepted. There were no PPI details attached to the mailer, nor were there any ever sent to her. She also has been on medication for blood pressure and hypertension since before the application.

 

Cap One blanked her in exactly the same way as you, so we referred to the FoS. After lengthy discussions with the FoS rep in writing and on the phone, they decided to side with Cap One on the grounds that 'on the balance of probability, we believe the terms of the PPI would have been disclosed to you when making the application, or at some stage since'.

 

We are absolutely seething, as the FoS are essentially calling her a liar, and the sum total of the PPI clauses in her credit card terms amounts to one line.

 

Will follow your thread with interest, as at the moment, we dont know which way to turn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just sent off my SAR request this week so I will also be following your thread with interest.

 

I have the an added interest into this because Cap One didn't pay out on the PPI when my husband was taken seriously ill.

 

Shelley

Santander PPI X 2 **WON** claims on behalf of son (Oct 2010/ Mar 2011)

Citicard O/H (PPI) - **WON** Compound Interest Dec 2011

Citicard O/H (Charges) Bailiffs sent in August 2012

Barclaycard - **WON** Compound Interest Oct 2011

Monument - account information being sought for OH

Citicard - self - N1 submitted August 2012

Barclaycard - self - **WON** damages for non disclosure/information now rec'd. Aug 2012

Barclaycard - relation - Failed SAR sent 29/09/11

Halifax SAR sent 18/08/2011 for relation

LTSB - SAR sent 09/08/2011 for friend

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...