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
  • FIRST POST
    • Sbr
    • By Sbr 18th Apr 17, 5:40 PM
    • 1Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Sbr
    Old loan ppi claim and rule of 78 excessive settlement m do I have a claim for compo?
    • #1
    • 18th Apr 17, 5:40 PM
    Old loan ppi claim and rule of 78 excessive settlement m do I have a claim for compo? 18th Apr 17 at 5:40 PM
    In 2002 I took out a 40000 loan with swift advances, the first point of contact was through ocean finance. My question is 2 parts really.

    PPI, there was £5600 PPI added to the loan. I'm looking to claim this back, do I contact ocean finance or swift?

    I redeemed the loan mid 2005 and the settlement figure was around £54800 inc early repayment fees which were few hundred pounds so I guess I was subject to 'rule of 78' figures.

    Would I have any claim to question this now as rule of 78 was abolished in 2005.

    Also just found that neither are trading, how do I claim or can't I? Many thanks for the help in advance.
Page 1
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 18th Apr 17, 10:00 PM
    • 4,161 Posts
    • 2,296 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    • #2
    • 18th Apr 17, 10:00 PM
    • #2
    • 18th Apr 17, 10:00 PM
    You'd need to complain to whoever sold it to you, as it's pre-2005 / pre-regulation it would depend on whether the company was a member of a regulatory body as to whether they have to consider the complaint.

    The single premium nature of the loan / PPI is indeed a miss-sale but as the company isn't trading it's hard to see where the complaint could go to. I'd suggest speaking to the FOS to see if the phoenix company has any liability as the entity known as Ocean Finance and Mortgages did have to pay out as recently as 2012
    • Nearlyold
    • By Nearlyold 19th Apr 17, 8:08 AM
    • 826 Posts
    • 666 Thanks
    Nearlyold
    • #3
    • 19th Apr 17, 8:08 AM
    • #3
    • 19th Apr 17, 8:08 AM
    If rules were changed in 2005 they would not have been retrospective and would only apply to loans that started after the change in legislation.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 19th Apr 17, 7:50 PM
    • 4,161 Posts
    • 2,296 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    • #4
    • 19th Apr 17, 7:50 PM
    • #4
    • 19th Apr 17, 7:50 PM
    If rules were changed in 2005 they would not have been retrospective and would only apply to loans that started after the change in legislation.
    Originally posted by Nearlyold
    Regulation started for all finance providers in 2005 encompassing things like store finance, car finance etc however, groups who were part of earlier regulatory bodies like GISC for banks means they have to accept complaints (part of the big fight the banks made was that the FCA basically changed the rules and then applied them retrospectively - exactly the opposite of what you wrote). Ocean Finance seem to be a bit iffy as to where/which part of them the loan came from and whether they had to pay out
    • Nearlyold
    • By Nearlyold 21st Apr 17, 8:00 AM
    • 826 Posts
    • 666 Thanks
    Nearlyold
    • #5
    • 21st Apr 17, 8:00 AM
    • #5
    • 21st Apr 17, 8:00 AM
    I was answering the question in respect of the OP's rule of 78 query.
    If the OP redeemed the loan in mid 2005 the Early Settlement Regulations 2004 effective May 2005 would not have applied because the act stated:-

    10.—(1) The Regulations referred to in regulation 8 continue to apply, in place of regulations 1-7 of these Regulations, and the amendments in regulation 9 do not apply, in the case of a regulated consumer credit agreement entered into before the date on which these Regulations come into force— (a) until 31st May 2007, if the agreement is for a term of 10 years or less; (b) until 31st May 2010, if the agreement is for a term of more than 10 years. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the term of an agreement is the term originally provided for, or, in the case where the term was varied before the date on which these Regulations are made, the term provided for on that date.

    Therefore the OP cannot now ask for them to be retrospectively applied which is what he asked - in any event the Rule of 78 vs an actuarial calculation for interest rebates are not actually that dramatically different with the former in favour of the lender
    Last edited by Nearlyold; 21-04-2017 at 8:03 AM.
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

197Posts Today

1,232Users online

Martin's Twitter