PPI Reclaiming discussion Part III

di3004

Turboman wrote: »

Marshallka

Thankyou re Re your figures

1) Was the interest rate and payments constant?-if not what was the recent months monthly payment?
2) What was the final outstanding balance on your statement BEFORE the various settlements?

AS you know, in my earlier post, I simulate mathametically using the Compound Interest Formulae the actual statements you receive. I have reconciled with Halifax & FP statements exactly to date on some previous cases.

In the usual scenario, the PPI Premiums + 8% are refunded & the balance (at line 19 written off)---ie THE complete PPI .

Then if a settlement is required, they should then just calculate the additional penalty to add on to the Advances Balance (in your case done with "backtracking" with Rule 78 (dressed up as "rebates")

With yours, they have calculated settlement figures as if you hadn't been mis-sold yet and THEN tackled it as mis-sold. Mathematically totally illogical!--unless there was a time period between Settling(paying it all off)and then the mis-sold agreement accepted?

Whether they have "ripped you off" or "to your advantage"-I don't know yet--but its like a red rag to a bull with me and I HAVE to understand why they have done it that way.

It will obviously balance with their explanations--but I pose the question--was it right to do it this way?

Got Flu again so retiring--hope to be fit tomorrow.

Take care hun :kisses: :kisses:

Get better real soon then Turbo.:kisses3: X

marshallka

Turboman wrote: »

Marshallka

Thankyou re Re your figures

1) Was the interest rate and payments constant?-if not what was the recent months monthly payment?
2) What was the final outstanding balance on your statement BEFORE the various settlements?

AS you know, in my earlier post, I simulate mathametically using the Compound Interest Formulae the actual statements you receive. I have reconciled with Halifax & FP statements exactly to date on some previous cases.

In the usual scenario, the PPI Premiums + 8% are refunded & the balance (at line 19 written off)---ie THE complete PPI .

Then if a settlement is required, they should then just calculate the additional penalty to add on to the Advances Balance (in your case done with "backtracking" with Rule 78 (dressed up as "rebates")

With yours, they have calculated settlement figures as if you hadn't been mis-sold yet and THEN tackled it as mis-sold. Mathematically totally illogical!--unless there was a time period between Settling(paying it all off)and then the mis-sold agreement accepted?

Whether they have "ripped you off" or "to your advantage"-I don't know yet--but its like a red rag to a bull with me and I HAVE to understand why they have done it that way.

It will obviously balance with their explanations--but I pose the question--was it right to do it this way?

Got Flu again so retiring--hope to be fit tomorrow.

Take care hun :kisses: :kisses:

Turbo, I argued this with the FOS and according to your figures that you have worked out for me I have come off well....:D

This is the way which the FOS work out settled PPI repayments and I have statement letter from the FOS saying this... I have to agree I can see where they are coming from. I could have argued the interest being only simple interest but was very grateful for the goodwill offer and did not want to. I then could have been waiting for ages again in the queue just for the extra few quid. My bank have been very understanding always and I will continue to bank with them. In fact in my SAR they sent all my bank charges too and each one was refunded (with a week of being applied!!) by goodwill and this was before the bank charges reclaiming. This was because I always rang them and apologised for the going a little overdrawn and asked this of them. Each time they have repaid EVERY penny... I did not let things get out of control.

If you think its wrong then continue your own way and good luck but like I say I did not want to have a loan and it cost me nothing in interest. I have double checked this so many times and also the adjudicator was tremendous in explaining things to me. That again I was very grateful of.

He even put me in touch with a manager there who also rang and explained. I had a paper sent out to me to say that is how the FOS do the calculations and afterall it was them I was asking to get me the redress.

I will post up the FOS calculations in redress of settled loans and how it was worded etc.;)

marshallka

Incipience wrote: »

Just speaking to a barrister a moment ago and it occurs to me, what the hell are we all claiming back PPI for?

I have an important call to make tomorrow morning that if it turns out to be true, I would hang up my ppi claim. And still get all the premiums back plus more..!!!

Stay Tuned..

I realise what you are saying here Incipience and its been said so many times... on other threads too..

Let us know what they say;)

Concentrate on the loan that paid the PPI and not the PPI itself...;)
You could win on Unfair Contract terms in so far as the firm did not act in your best interests in accordance with agency law and the Misrepresentation Act. You have to challenge the validity of the loan that paid the premium and not the ppi itself

Incipience

Turboman... anyway to convert that spreadsheet to PHP?

Incipience

marshallka wrote: »

I realise what you are saying here Incipience and its been said so many times... on other threads too..

Let us know what they say;)

The thing is marshy everyone has tried to go this alone.. and approach FP with these facts.. and they know it exists. According to the barrister, it is a fact and they know it.

However some crucial information is missing, and that is what I was struggling with, however it is plain and very clear now.. forget about all the Wilson case states, that isnt even part of it.

Will let you know tomorrow, also have found a good company who do not charge any fees that will talk on some cases.. I have a call back with them later, to see about doing a deal with my members, either case by case or class action.

marshallka

Incipience wrote: »

The thing is marshy everyone has tried to go this alone.. and approach FP with these facts.. and they know it exists. According to the barrister, it is a fact and they know it.

However some crucial information is missing, and that is what I was struggling with, however it is plain and very clear now.. forget about all the Wilson case states, that isnt even part of it.

Will let you know tomorrow, also have found a good company who do not charge any fees that will talk on some cases.. I have a call back with them later, to see about doing a deal with my members, either case by case or class action.

I posted this after
Concentrate on the loan that paid the PPI and not the PPI itself...;)
You could win on Unfair Contract terms in so far as the firm did not act in your best interests in accordance with agency law and the Misrepresentation Act. You have to challenge the validity of the loan that paid the premium and not the ppi itself

This is most probably about the broker though if using agency law and not the lender...

I'm in if its a class action...

marshallka

Incipience...



ICOB only became law on 14.01.05 in the UK and resulted from the IMD, the Insurance Mediation Directive (which we know;) )

Prior to that date the FSA did not have any control over GI but "complaint transitioning" was permitted in respect of GISC members who were the GI larger firms. There is some confusion because the ABI had a voluntary code prior to 05. (don't know if that is any use to you )


You can apply unfair contract terms etc prior to Jan 05 but you need to do that against the loan that paid the premium and not the ppi itself;)

Just food for thought I think....maybe a lot of nonsense but worth a post.

Incipience

marshallka wrote: »

I posted this after
Concentrate on the loan that paid the PPI and not the PPI itself...;)
You could win on Unfair Contract terms in so far as the firm did not act in your best interests in accordance with agency law and the Misrepresentation Act. You have to challenge the validity of the loan that paid the premium and not the ppi itself

This is most probably about the broker though if using agency law and not the lender...

I'm in if its a class action...

If we are to talk agency law, then Significantly, the lender, who had paid the commission knowing that the broker was acting as the agent of the borrowers, was found liable as an accessory to that breach. This means that the borrowers are entitled to claim equitable compensation directly against lender.

The judge could therefore order rescission of the loan (rescission: The right of an individual involved within a contract to return to the identical state as before they entered into the agreement, due to courts not recognizing the contract as legally binding.)

I have sought the financial law advice from 2 lawyers, 1 barrister and 2 expert claim companies.. and my understanding is correct now.

However with reference to the paragraph above, this forms only part of the whole issue and I have searched the forums to find any other reference (none exists) no wonder these companies are keeping it secret..

Furthermore, back to the law of agency, a breach of fiduciary duty is fraud, and therefore a dissolved company, actually the directors are not protected by its dissolution in cases of fraud.. Also, the statute of limitation only come into force (start) once the breached has been discovered.

Incipience

marshallka wrote: »

Incipience...



ICOB only became law on 14.01.05 in the UK and resulted from the IMD, the Insurance Mediation Directive (which we know;) )

Prior to that date the FSA did not have any control over GI but "complaint transitioning" was permitted in respect of GISC members who were the GI larger firms. There is some confusion because the ABI had a voluntary code prior to 05. (don't know if that is any use to you )


You can apply unfair contract terms etc prior to Jan 05 but you need to do that against the loan that paid the premium and not the ppi itself;)

Just food for thought I think....maybe a lot of nonsense but worth a post.

Case and Point.. Forget PPI

marshallka

Incipience wrote: »

If we are to talk agency law, then Significantly, the lender, who had paid the commission knowing that the broker was acting as the agent of the borrowers, was found liable as an accessory to that breach. This means that the borrowers are entitled to claim equitable compensation directly against lender.

The judge could therefore order rescission of the loan (rescission: The right of an individual involved within a contract to return to the identical state as before they entered into the agreement, due to courts not recognizing the contract as legally binding.)

I have sought the financial law advice from 2 lawyers, 1 barrister and 2 expert claim companies.. and my understanding is correct now.

However with reference to the paragraph above, this forms only part of the whole issue and I have searched the forums to find any other reference.

Posted a load more "Dribble!" above.