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

Cedar Holdings PPI


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3243 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 guys,

 

I've done some googling but don't seem to find any clear guidance...

 

My parents have details of a large loan taken out in the 90s with PPI added at £100 per month over 5 years.

 

 

The loan was through Cedar Holdings who I believe have since been acquired by Lloyds / Black Horse.

 

 

My parents were not in need of this PPI, this was missold.

This would be a sizeable claim.

 

 

Is there any avenue for redress?

 

Would really appreciate some advice from this fantastic community! :-)

 

Thanks in advance for any help offered.

 

JK

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes sure you can reclaim it

 

 

what paperwork do you have?

 

 

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

Ok - sounds promising....

 

My mum has said that she has the original paperwork detailing the £100 / month PPI.

 

I was unable to find too much regarding PPI claims against Cedar Holdings, just people in similar positions to my parents' who were unsure where to address the claim. Some people had suggested that because the loan was taken around 1994ish that she would be unable to claim.

 

My mum had rang Lloyds and they denied accountability for the PPI.

 

Should she go directly to the FOS?

 

Thanks again for any advice:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Likely loan was arranged via a broker such as HFS Loans

 

Let's see the paperwork minus personal details

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

put all the pix into a word doc first

then pdf that

then upload

 

 

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

Hi guys,

 

Finally managed to get to my parents' and dig out their paperwork. Please see the attached file.

 

Does this look like anything that could be progressed?

 

Any contributions appreciated.

 

JK

 

The very top of the doc says Rugby Finance Ltd.

 

'Credit Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

Lender: Cedar Holdings Ltd

 

Total Loan 27306 paid by 180 payments of 442.10

 

PPI 2255 repayment of 180 monthly amounts of 36.51

 

Cash advance 180 payments of 405.39

 

APR% 19.7

 

signed 15 May 1991.

 

Hope this helps with any advice.

 

Cheers,

 

JK

 

Thanks!

 

Think this should show ok now...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...