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 help


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3997 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

I have successfully claimed back 3 lots of ppi from black horse already,

and now we are on with the final one,

 

we still have an outstanding balance with this particular loan (not sure how much all arrears though)

and after they took us to court we got them to cancel the ppi but they never refunded it .

 

then earlier on this year they sent us a ppi misselling questionnaire

so we filled it out and sent it back and yesterday got the response and it makes no sense to me at all .

 

this is what it says

 

 

there offer is £171.17

 

this is the calculations

 

refund of premiums £655.08

excess balance and interest £99.27

less previously accepted claim -£0.00

less partial refund of PPI already applied -£164.90

less arrears on loan -£4083.80

SUB TOTAL £0.00

interest at 8%, calculated up until 15 july 2013 £238.62

less tax at 20% from 8% interest -£47.72

TOTAL £190.90

 

then it says "Please note that as you received a redress of £89.37 for agreement ******* on 14/07/211, this amount will be taken off the total above and your total redress payment will be £171.17

 

could someone please explain what all that means because I cant see where they get £171.17 from and I don't understand the calculations at all I have trie to work it all out but failed miserably

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok well those 8 payments of £78 comes close to their £655.

 

It seems they are going to set off the redress against the loan account apart from the 8% interest element.

 

So the 8% is £238.62 less the tax they are holding back of £47.72 which indeed does come to £190.90. I can't see where the £19.73 difference comes from to get the £171 though.

 

I think you will need more detail from the lender before you can be sure of what has gone on.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...