Author: Jason Williams
Published: November 24, 2016
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 6 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
The PPI bandwagon has parked itself outside one of our members’ premises of late – destination “The Land of Injustice” and driven by the Financial Ombudsman.
After disputing a PPI mis-selling claim for quite some years, the Financial Ombudsman issued its final decision in favour of the consumer (we expect little else) much to the annoyance and indeed disbelief of the writer.
To add insult to injury the Ombudsman stated that the consumer is entitled to interest from the outset – despite the fact that during this time the Ombudsman failed to respond to one of our letters for eleven months.
It also seems nonsensical to me that the Ombudsman’s decision is binding on the business, whereas the consumer can reject any adverse decision and have a second bite at the cherry by going to court.