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 
        • 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

Claiming back PPI from RBS ?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3896 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 believe I was mi sold this as being necessary to cover my cards against online fraud when I was already disabled at the time before I applied for it ( I've been disabled since 2003 ) am I correct in assuming this , and if so has any one else had success in claiming back for these protection schemes ?

 

thanks folks,

 

mike

 

UPDATE* Forgot to mention they in spite of no filling out their renewal forms they have just taken the money out of my account any way , is that even legal ??

Edited by mikv
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I was mi sold this as being necessary to cover my cards against online fraud when I was already disabled at the time before I applied for it ( I've been disabled since 2003 ) some 5-6 yrs before I ever took out PPI.

 

It turns out too , that money for the PPI has just been taken out of my bank as well despite the fact I did not renew it .

 

Am I correct in assuming that this is something that would qualify a gross misrepresentation on the part of RBS and something I should be able to claim back for ?

 

I did not and never had had an overdraft , mortgage or any of the other things RBS mentions their PPI cover ( which they would have known ) ,and the fact I was already disabled would I assumed already have invalidated it any way

 

Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) is an optional insurance policy often taken with loans, mortgages, overdrafts, credit cards or store cards that could cover you if you can't meet your repayments in the event of involuntary unemployment, illness, accident, disability or death.

 

thanks folks,

 

mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two threads merged.

 

In your first post you say that this was to cover you against fraud. In which case it could be a card protection policy and there would only have been one annual payment.

 

If it was PPI then there would have been an amount added to the account each month that the card showed a balance due.

 

Whichever it was they are both reclaimable if mis-sold but the process for each is different.

 

Can you clarify which it is please? Do you have your statements?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two threads merged.

 

In your first post you say that this was to cover you against fraud. In which case it could be a card protection policy and there would only have been one annual payment.

 

If it was PPI then there would have been an amount added to the account each month that the card showed a balance due.

 

Whichever it was they are both reclaimable if mis-sold but the process for each is different.

 

Can you clarify which it is please? Do you have your statements?

 

Hi,

 

It was actual the annual , which was £23.00 if I recall .

 

mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thanks.....was this "insurance" first taken out/applied in 2005 or later or did this happen before 2005?

 

no it was after, the whole reason I took it out was due to some online fraud that started in 08 then more serious event round 09-10 , I think Ive only been into overdraft x1 in my life .

 

mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thanks.

 

For Card Protection Policies you should shortly receive letters which will outline the proposal for redress and the instructions on what to do next.

 

This will involve voting "yes" for the proposed redress scheme.

 

When the redress scheme is approved (assuming the "yes" vote gets it) then repayments will be made in early 2014.

 

If you haven't received any such letters in the next couple of weeks I would ask the bank why you have not received them.

  • Confused 1

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...