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

Black Horse PPi claim rejected - self employed claimant.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4141 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

Sorry looking at this I feel I should clarify what I am looking for . If I have had additional charges added to my original agreement ( ie Key Man Insurance)

paid up front with interest added , does this add up to miss selling ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Adding a single premium to the front of a loan and charging interest on it is not in itself mis-selling. As you are probably aware, the bank lend you the money to pay the single premium and thus charge interest on it over the life of the loan. If this happened without telling you the true cost then that is one reason why it could have been mis-sold, i.e. you were unaware of the true cost.

 

Now to your specific situation.

 

You were under the impression that this was PPI becasue you were told it was PPI.. It turned out that it wasn't...it was keyman insurance.

 

PPI is generally of no use the self employed but keyman can be.

 

So what I am saying is that of they told you it was PPI but it was keyman then you have been mis-sold keyman on the basis that you were told it was one thing and they provided you with another thing.

 

Had they stuck to their word and put a PPI in place then that would have been mis-sold on the basis that as a self employed person you would not have been covered.

 

So your claim will hinge on the fact that the keyman should be paid back to you because you were told it was PPI. If it was PPI (which it wasn't) then your claim would be on the basis that you were self employed.

 

So the question to ask the bank is "why was I told it was PPI and yet the policy is a keyman?"

 

"As I was told it was PPI, you mis-sold me keyman which I didn't need because I had adequate cover already and you therefore misled me."

 

"If you say it is PPI then you have mis-sold me because PPI would not have covered me because I was self employed"

 

Looks to me like you can back them into a corner here.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ims- Thank you, the Agreement had within it a Second Schedule which identified it as PPI , although it was Key Man. I think you are right, had i been told it was straight life insurance which I had in place I would n't have taken it. Interestingly the later Agreements taken out in Blackhorse offices were PPi

ones. This original one was taken out in a dealership. So many thanks . Hijinkx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Hope I've helped...."why" is a great question to ask in a case like this. You can ask the question in the right way and there is a chance that you can get them into a position that they cannot get out of.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...