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

Paragon PPI & PENALTY Charges reclaims refused - help


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4119 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

 

I had an unsecured loan with Paragon that I got into repayment problems with - it eventually ran from 1999 to 2009. I recently sent them a SAR in order to see exactly what I had paid and see whether I could reclaim any of it.

 

I sent them two seperate claim spreadsheets.

 

The first was a claim for PPI payments I had made.

They have sent me a final response saying that as the PPI was taken out pre-2005, the industry was not regulated so there is no claim to be made.

They have also said that as my loan was submitted to them by a broker (Personal Loan Centre Limited), they were not part to any conversations about insurance.

They have said they would usually refer me back to the broker, but they are no longer trading.

 

The second spreadsheet I sent them was a list of charges for telephone calls and letters that I asked them to pay back.

Their final response to this says that the charges were debited to my account in accordance with the fee tariff at the time and they cannot reverse those fees.

 

Do I have any additional options open to me now? Is it worth raising my payment fees claim with the fos and if so how do I go about this?

 

As ever, thanks in advance for your help :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the PPI front you might want to check and see if the FSCS will take on your claim as the broker has gone out of business.

 

Is your agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974?

 

For the charges, fos will almost certainly not be interested and will side with the lender. You will need to take them to court to get those charges back. The basis of your claim will be that they are a penalty and not a true reflection of the actual costs incurred.

 

If you are gong for charges more than six years old you will need to rely on S32(1)© Limitations Act 1980 (payments made under a mistake).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the PPI front you might want to check and see if the FSCS will take on your claim as the broker has gone out of business.

 

Is your agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974?

 

For the charges, fos will almost certainly not be interested and will side with the lender. You will need to take them to court to get those charges back. The basis of your claim will be that they are a penalty and not a true reflection of the actual costs incurred.

 

If you are gong for charges more than six years old you will need to rely on S32(1)© Limitations Act 1980 (payments made under a mistake).

 

Thanks for the information. I'll try the FSCS.

 

The agreement was regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - I will raise a claim against them for the charges then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your agreement is regulated and you wish to go the court route for the PPI then you could use S56 Consumer Credit Act which makes a lender responsible for the representations of his agent i.e. the broker.

 

In a court action, the onus of proof of mis-selling will be on you (civil burden on the balance of probability).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...