Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
Page 1
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 5th Aug 14, 5:46 PM
    • 18,334 Posts
    • 8,571 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    • #2
    • 5th Aug 14, 5:46 PM
    • #2
    • 5th Aug 14, 5:46 PM
    Could anyone tell me who the finance provider was for Dixons in 1980s?
    Originally posted by Aurora B
    The 1980's are around twenty years prior to the regulation of general insurance in January 2005. If your proposed complaint is about PPI (or similar) from this time, then neither Dixons nor the finance provider would have to even consider your concerns.

    What exactly are you wanting to complain about, thirty years on?
  • Aurora B
    • #3
    • 5th Aug 14, 6:00 PM
    • #3
    • 5th Aug 14, 6:00 PM
    Thanks for enlightening me on this. I was advised to look into it as I know I had paid some kind of PPI at the time but I didn't realise that it pre-dated the legislation. Case closed then!
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 5th Aug 14, 6:07 PM
    • 18,334 Posts
    • 8,571 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    • #4
    • 5th Aug 14, 6:07 PM
    • #4
    • 5th Aug 14, 6:07 PM
    I was advised to look into it as I know I had paid some kind of PPI at the time but I didn't realise that it pre-dated the legislation.
    Originally posted by Aurora B
    If your complaint has been with a Bank, then they would have had to consider any complaint. However, even a bank would be hard pressed to have records stretching back THIRTY YEARS about "some kind of PPI"

    Only very robust mis-selling complaints, with full and comprehensive documentation, have even a chance of being upheld if they are this old.
    • magpiecottage
    • By magpiecottage 6th Aug 14, 4:42 PM
    • 9,131 Posts
    • 5,584 Thanks
    magpiecottage
    • #5
    • 6th Aug 14, 4:42 PM
    • #5
    • 6th Aug 14, 4:42 PM
    If your complaint has been with a Bank, then they would have had to consider any complaint. However, even a bank would be hard pressed to have records stretching back THIRTY YEARS about "some kind of PPI"

    Only very robust mis-selling complaints, with full and comprehensive documentation, have even a chance of being upheld if they are this old.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    But the complaint is not against the bank but against the seller - i.e. Dixons Retail Group. They cannot be pursued via FOS so they can rely on Section 14B of the Limitation Act 1980.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 6th Aug 14, 8:11 PM
    • 18,334 Posts
    • 8,571 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    • #6
    • 6th Aug 14, 8:11 PM
    • #6
    • 6th Aug 14, 8:11 PM
    neither Dixons nor the finance provider would have to even consider your concerns.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    If your complaint has been with a Bank, then they would have had to consider any complaint.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    But the complaint is not against the bank but against the seller - i.e. Dixons Retail Group. They cannot be pursued via FOS
    Originally posted by magpiecottage
    Yes, exactly as I already pointed out at post #2 of this thread (quoted above). My point was that the OP was "advised" to complain, probably because Banks would still have to consider any complaint even after thirty years.

    I think the OP already got that message!
    • magpiecottage
    • By magpiecottage 7th Aug 14, 1:16 PM
    • 9,131 Posts
    • 5,584 Thanks
    magpiecottage
    • #7
    • 7th Aug 14, 1:16 PM
    • #7
    • 7th Aug 14, 1:16 PM
    Banks would still have to consider any complaint even after thirty years.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    Actually, they don't because the Banking Ombudsman scheme only started in 1986 - 28 years ago!

    In addition, they only need to consider it if the original lender was a member of the scheme at the time of the sale.

    That is why Santander has to consider some historic complaints but not others.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 7th Aug 14, 1:48 PM
    • 18,334 Posts
    • 8,571 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    • #8
    • 7th Aug 14, 1:48 PM
    • #8
    • 7th Aug 14, 1:48 PM
    Actually, they don't because the Banking Ombudsman scheme only started in 1986 - 28 years ago!
    Originally posted by magpiecottage
    I stand corrected!
  • GordonH
    • #9
    • 30th Sep 14, 2:46 PM
    • #9
    • 30th Sep 14, 2:46 PM
    For information in the 80's Dixons used either Lombard Tricity finance or Club 24 (which was owned by Hepworths the tailoring company). Club 24 ran the store card and did some of the loans. Lombard Tricity did unsecured personal loans for things like TV's.

    I know because I worked for Dixons in the mid 80's.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Learn from the mistakes of others - you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 30th Sep 14, 2:55 PM
    • 18,334 Posts
    • 8,571 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    For information in the 80's Dixons used either Lombard Tricity finance or Club 24 (which was owned by Hepworths the tailoring company). Club 24 ran the store card and did some of the loans. Lombard Tricity did unsecured personal loans for things like TV's.
    Originally posted by GordonH
    Thanks for the information, but, as the 1980's are around twenty years prior to the regulation of general insurance, any mis-selling complaint is doomed to failure. In addition, do you really think either lombard Tricity Finance or Club24 will still have any records of thirty-year-old finance?
    • ~Brock~
    • By ~Brock~ 30th Sep 14, 4:03 PM
    • 1,566 Posts
    • 1,455 Thanks
    ~Brock~
    I remember buying a Betamax video in the 80's from Dixons using Club24 credit.

    Now if that wasn't mis-selling I don't know what was!
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 30th Sep 14, 4:16 PM
    • 18,334 Posts
    • 8,571 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    I remember buying a Betamax video in the 80's from Dixons using Club24 credit.

    Now if that wasn't mis-selling I don't know what was!
    Originally posted by ~Brock~
    In reality, Betamax's failure was mainly down to lack of content compared to VHS. It was actually the superior technology.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 30th Sep 14, 4:26 PM
    • 4,165 Posts
    • 2,300 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    In reality, Betamax's failure was mainly down to lack of content compared to VHS. It was actually the superior technology.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    That and the 1 hour limit of storage, meaning VHS which offered 2+ hours was the more useful for consumers - if the betamax offered 2 hours off the bat, they would probably have won.

    I think I remember reading Betamax refused to deal with porn studios who bizarrely lead the market in adapting to new technology, so when they used VHS it sealed the death of Betamax
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 30th Sep 14, 4:45 PM
    • 18,334 Posts
    • 8,571 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    I think I remember reading Betamax refused to deal with porn studios who bizarrely lead the market in adapting to new technology, so when they used VHS it sealed the death of Betamax
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    Sony made a series of marketing mistakes with Betamax, but the real killer was the failure to sign up with as many of the major Hollywood studios as VHS did. The rest is history (rather like this thread)
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,317Posts Today

7,851Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Today's Twitter poll 2: following on, which of these professions would you trust least if you were using their services?

  • Today's Twitter poll: Which of these professions would you trust most if you were using their services?

  • RT @ctsi_uk: Section 75 credit card protection may fail due to payment processing loophole - shoppers beware @MartinSLewis https://t.co/8uQ?

  • Follow Martin