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

Royal Bank of Scotland - PPI and Horendous interset rate


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6376 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

In February 2004 I took out a loan for £5,000 with Direct Line. I was told that my credit history was poor therefore they would load the interest rate. Furthermore I would be required to take out their PPI.

I needed the money quickly and had an acceptance from them so didn't look elsewhere. So how much do you think I'm paying?

The loan was £5000·00

The PPI was £1526·70

Total loan £6526·70

Interest was £3045·10

Total repayable £9571·80 at a flat rate of interest of 18·287%. Earlier today I looked up the Bank of England base rate for February 2004 and it was 4% !!!

 

I defaulted on the loan earlier in the year and now have a County Court judgement against me with an order to pay the arears plus costs which total £9K+. Despite having paid almost £2·5K in monthly charges before default.

 

I am trying to get the judgement set aside because I believe clause 8 of my loan agreement (is an unfair clause under the current consumer legislation) states that I have to pay the full outstanding amount plus charges and costs in the event of a default. This in effect represents a penalty charge which is unrecoverable in common law.

 

My questions are, and I'm sorry it took so long to get to them, are;

  • Do I have a case for mis-selling against Direct Line as they charged me so much interest at the time that interest rates were low?
  • Did they mis sell the PPI that they insisted I took from them beacause it was so much more expensive than a company called "Security First" who's current rates are £2·15 per £100 of monthly premium. Meaning their total charge for PPI would have been closer to £200 compared to Direct Line's £1526?
  • Surely these Companies have a duty of care towards their customers and this company failed to excercise its duty of care when dealing with me?

I would welcome the thoughts and advice of fellow members, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In short if you were aware of cost involved no.

 

some shoes are more expensive than others but that doesnt give the right t sue after buying them does it

 

However if you were told you had to have the cover that is a mis sale and you should go with that, because it has always been what we call non complaint to inform a customer that the cover is mandatory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Even though you have bad credit history they CANNOT make PPI a condition of the loan. PPI is or should always be Optional though i know they all use this as a way of selling you a very expensive product, and in some cases the seller can pocket up to 65% of the policy cost as way of Commision / Bonus. No wonder the amount of complaints about PPI is escalating.. Its Time to Fight Back...

 

Ian

Lloyds TSB -PPI - Full refund . 05/09/06 :D:p (As Seen on TV) :p

Halifax settled in Full.. :D 22/09/06

TSB First Claim SETTLED IN FULL 19/10/06 :D

Second Claim to Lloyds TSB - Settled in Full

Firstplus - early settlement interest charges - Challenged the use of the rule of 78 - SETTLED IN FULL 12/1/07

PPI - GE Money / Purpleloans / Firstplus - Now Settled after 1 year long hard fight.

 

 

 

If my post has helped you, please click the scales! :grin:

 

Anything said is my opinion and how I understand the law, always consult professional legal advice before taking something to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...