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

Natwest PPI question


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3055 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 there.

 

after deliberating for months as I thought my potential claim would be too old,

I decided to call NatWest recently to enquire about a PPI claim

relating to a loan I had taken in 1998 which I knew had PPI attached to it.

To my surprise they found the details and I have now been sent a letter and claim form.

The letter states that my policy start date was 29/6/1998 and the close date was 18/01/2000.

The insurance premium was £127.

If I am honest I have limited recollection of the loan, other than I remember it was to buy my first car and I think it was for around £2000.

I don't know the APR or anything like that.

I remember I was told I had to have PPI or I wouldn’t be given the loan.

Before I complete the claim form do you think that I ought to have any further information,

such as a copy of the loan agreement (if I can even get this now) or shall I just fill it in and send it back and see?

I know we are not talking big money here, but at the end of the day NatWest have had plenty of money from me for many years, so why not try to get some back for once.

Any advice/help gratefully received.

 

Edited by jim1978
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well great one for wising up, and if they have info on the loan then thats a good thing :)

Have you considered sending a SAR to them?

 

Oh and welcome to CAG, Jheywood1978....

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep sar is the way to go

 

 

if you have a read around

and/or see my link I below

 

 

it might pay you to use the FOS questionnaire

rather than the banks one..

 

 

the bank can ask rather loaded questions

that if truth were know

sometimes are specifically worded to make you answer in their favour of refusing the reclaim.

 

 

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 there.

 

after deliberating for months as I thought my potential claim would be too old,

I decided to call NatWest recently to enquire about a PPI claim

relating to a loan I had taken in 1998 which I knew had PPI attached to it.

To my surprise they found the details and I have now been sent a letter and claim form.

The letter states that my policy start date was 29/6/1998 and the close date was 18/01/2000.

The insurance premium was £127.

If I am honest I have limited recollection of the loan, other than I remember it was to buy my first car and I think it was for around £2000.

I don't know the APR or anything like that.

I remember I was told I had to have PPI or I wouldn’t be given the loan.

Before I complete the claim form do you think that I ought to have any further information,

such as a copy of the loan agreement (if I can even get this now) or shall I just fill it in and send it back and see?

I know we are not talking big money here, but at the end of the day NatWest have had plenty of money from me for many years, so why not try to get some back for once.

Any advice/help gratefully received.

 

 

 

If it goes back to 1998, won't there be interest at 8%? Could add up to quite a bit... Let us know how you get on! TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep sar is the way to go

 

 

if you have a read around

and/or see my link I below

 

 

it might pay you to use the FOS questionnaire

rather than the banks one..

 

 

the bank can ask rather loaded questions

that if truth were know

sometimes are specifically worded to make you answer in their favour of refusing the reclaim.

 

 

dx

 

I may be wrong but there was something on the news the other day which suggested that claimants won't need to prove that the PPI was mis-sold and can claim it back anyway... hopefully the forms will get even simpler. TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

never trust a bank

 

 

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...