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

PPi - tick in the box query


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4702 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

Have been studying some application forms recieved in respect of a store card and l

and have noticed that that I have ticked the PPi request box but the text in the box says it is higly recommended that you take this cover, I think I have read something that this comment is part of the mis-selling stuff - can someone put me right or confirm this please

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be that you ticked the box but it doesn't mean it was sold properly. Were you, for example, self employed? Were you advised, either with written word or verbally that you could take insurance elsewhere. It is not for them to suggest it is highly recommended...the decision would be your IF you were given all the facts.

 

Most people were not given all the facts.

 

Get reclaiming

 

Regards

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Thank you both for the information - will get reclaiming..........

 

I have also noticed that I made a claim in 2007 on this policy ( I know that will make it harder to claim but wth) but money went into the account from the insurance but they also continued to take the direct debit minumum payments - is that correct ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply Ims which is helpful as regards the claim but what has happened is that when I broke a bone in 2007 I made a successful claim on the policy and they paid the amounts directly on to the account; but they also continued to claim the direct debit monthly payment from my bank account - are they supposed to do that. On the other accounts I claimed on they did not request payments off me whilst I was off sick they just paid the money from the payment protection policy .........just a bit confused ?

This is what it looks like

 

Balance o/s 2500

Direct Debit Payment -100

Payment from payment protection -200

interest 30

Payment protection premium 25

Balance carried forward 2255

Not the exact amounts of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah

 

Right, I see what you mean now.

 

In my opinion your payments should cease while the policy is paying out. Otherwise there's no point in having the policy really 'cos you will keep paying anyway. The only thing I can think of is that the policy had a clause in it that siad you would pay the first £x, rather like an excess on a motor policy but I've not heard of a ppi policy like that.

 

Regards

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing of course is the activity on the account.

 

On a card, the ppi would normally pay out based on the balance on the account at the time of the claim. If you spent on the card after that date then that extra spending would be down to you to pay.

 

Regards

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning Ims - no we are not ! but welsh newbie is my partner !! they have been on the forum a while and I have been lurking :oops: and decided to ask my question about the credit card ppi payments, etc without mentioning it to them (not deliberately) but when I went on the laptop to see the replies it automatically logged on to their user name and I didn't check.

Sorry about that - hope its OK; obviously a classic example of how couples communicate :???:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...