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

Pre-2005 PPI London Scottish


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4254 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

Wonder if anyone has any next step guidance re pre-2005 PPI claim?

 

I have been battling with London Scottish for a 16th December 2004 executed loan which had £6,000 PPI pre-added to the contract.

 

It obviously sticks in the throat as it was less than a month before regulation kicked in 14th Jan 2005.

 

As London Scottish (LS) went into administration, I approached them and the declined any wrong doing (about 18 months ago) I then went to FOS who have case workers who suggested they go after the underwriter Aviva.

 

Top cut a long story short, this has been going on for 17 month, and I have had various case workers who have left the FOS along the way. although the previous case worker told me they were approaching Aviva for a group of borderline cases (mine included) who they felt should be refunded by the underwriter.

 

As I said, the previous last case worker left last month (out of office email saying no longer works there), so I decided to upon calling last Friday 12th October for an update to a general line at FOS I was told there was no new, and no correspondence between Aviva and FOS in months.

 

Today (Monday 15th October) I took a call from a new guy at the FOS who told me (despite nothing new only a few days prior) that the FOS had ruled there was nothing for Aviva to answer, as there's no proof of a link between LS and Aviva (the only contract/documents I have have no Aviva reference just the LS ref, with the generic Aviva underwriting policy). He said he would put it in writing, and I have the right to appeal.

 

So palmed off by FOS, palmed off by LS, the FSCS say I have to have something from FOS anyone have any ideas how I can pursue.

 

FYI, I have all the original contracts, and it is clear the PPI was pre-printed with no option to delete.

 

Thank you in advance,

 

Dusty

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi dusty

i've moved your thread to the PPI forum

 

if you have a browse around here or use the search top right

 

i think you'll find at least one success whereby the administrators of london scottish coughed

 

just type in london scottish

 

 

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...