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

*** Barclaycard - no reply to PPI claim letters ***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4391 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 Ladies and Gents,

 

well, I sent a claim to Barclaycard regarding a Mastercard and Visa which I took out way back in 1995. One of the cards was closed in 2004, the other in 2005 but I thought I've got nothing to lose by sending a letter, so off I went.

 

I'm lucky that I still have my letters received when I closed these accounts as well as letters from the Insurers. I also have a report from Checkmyfile from a few years back so all my dates for these accounts are in order. I would certainly recommend to everyone on CAG using this and Experian for checking on your debts and outgoings, I've found them invaluable.

 

Anyway, this and my other claims for mis-selling are based on the fact I have a pre-existing medical condition (Diabetes, I'm on Insulin) which I've suffered for 34 years. I've never been asked and its certainly never been put forward that any claim could be rejected due to my condition.

 

I've sent 2 letters to Barclaycard the first request in March giving them the 8 weeks allowed to reply, then in May a second giving a further 2 week both letters sent by Recorded Post and both signed for.

 

Up to now (31st May) I've not had any correspondence from Barclaycard regarding these accounts!!

 

My question is what or who next? Due to the length of time since the accounts were opened and closed would I be best going through the FOS or the FLA who I've been referred to in similar cases? I've not heard too much positive with the FLA they seem pretty toothless from what I've read but then what do I know? Is there another body someone might recommend?

 

I'm fighting on a few fronts at the moment and its refusal after refusal lately but I've started so may as well try and finish. Any suggestions on this one would be appreciated,

 

Theres more to come,

 

Tenmen10 :violin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

If the 8 weeks are up then fos would be your first port of call.

 

You can consider court action but you would need all of the amounts paid for PPI and I would guess that you don't have that info?

 

SAR would get you some but probably not all, this being due to the passage of time.

 

In addition court can be a bit of a pain because the onus of proof (civil burden on the balance of probability) would be on you as the claimant.

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...