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

LLoyds PPI commission : Ombudsman


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2298 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 all :

a while since I posted.

Had rejected PPI claim from LLoyds TSB : upheld by Ombudsman.

 

However since the Plevin case ,

in the last few days Ive had a letter from the Ombudsman saying Lloyds are now ready to make me an offer and if the Ombudsman don't hear from me by 12th December they will assume this is ok and close the case.

 

I realise it won't be much but never the less its better than nothing as I had given up on it to be honest.

 

Let's wait and see...

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't imagine that Lloyds offer will necessarily match the losses that you have suffered with your PPI.

 

It will be helpful if you would layout the entire PPI story here – referring particularly to the losses. What was the PPI in respect of? How was it funded? How long ago did it happen? Also, can you please tell us all the steps you have been through in order to get to this point.

 

In particular it would be helpful to know more about your initial complaint to Lloyds and how it was dealt with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, as I understand it , it will only be the difference over the 50% commission??

Crikey its been ages and to be honest

ive lost track a bit as lost some documents when changing over to a new PC which was very unfortunate ....

 

however I lodged a claim with LLoyds for PPI refund which they refused to my knowledge saying I knew what I was doing when I took it out.

 

It was for a credit card.

I sent to Financial Ombudsman for consideration, who also rejected that I had been mis -sold it but then received further letter saying about possibility of commission overpayment.

 

Then just this week had the letter saying LLoyds are ready to make me an offer.

 

I will try and find further info about dates, amounts etc and post further.

 

Just posted for info really if anyone else has had the same

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are certainly aware of one person who had PPI against a mortgage. The PPI was refunded out of their overdraft provided by the same bank – Lloyds. Eventually Lloyds refunded the PPI premiums plus the usual 8%. However, they refuse to refund all of the interest which was paid as a result of having had to borrow the monthly premium from the overdraft.

 

Lloyds argument was that it was not foreseeable that the £80 would be paid from a source which would incur interest. Lloyds argument has been that if the £80 payments had been funded from an un-authorised overdraft, then the interest would have been refundable. But because the £80 payment was paid from an authorised overdraft – no interest would be payable.

 

My view is that this argument is seriously flawed. I'd be interested to see if you have any parallels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

doesn't an authorised o/d involve interest on its credit.

loyds are the most culpable and complained about *anker. yet, the public they routinely ripped off bailed them out. go figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, unauthorised overdraft does involve interest on the credit – but Lloyds seem to want to distinguish between that and going over your limit. The worrying thing is that the FOS seems to agree – so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with you. forseeability should have nothing to do with it. if there was a missell, then customer has to be put back as if it never happened regardless of whether or not it was part from an authorised o/d

how can someone be put back if it doesn't take into account credit interest accrued as result of the missell. odd.

anyway, just having a rant v loyds :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Letter received today from LLoyds : cheque being sent to me for £3000+. on the basis of non-disclosure of level and commission payable from the PPI premium created an unfair relationship.

 

I wasn't expecting this at all. : when LLoyds turned my PPI claim down the Ombudsman agreed with that but Ombudsman asked LLoyds to review the unfair relationship aspect of the PPI sale.

 

It's really worth going to the Ombudsman : theyve helped with me with several claims

 

Nice letter to get today . thanks as always

Link to post
Share on other sites

well you get one or the other not both

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

yep, thats why they all did the [problem], scratching each others backs. at the detriment of the consumer.

at least they all got found out in the end.

but, overall who's actually paying for them. the consumer.

well done to fos for pointing to the commission

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...