PPI Reclaiming discussion Part III

ineedhelp2008

So where do we find out more about this Big Dog?

booi666

TheBigDog wrote: »

A word of caution....

Hi Guys,

Just a quick note, and you can all tell me to go away if you think I'm imposing. I reclaim ppi for a living, and I think it's great that some people have got the bottle to take on the banks themselves and I wish you all the best, however, there's one thing i see that a lot of lay people do concerning loans and ppi. I've got the greatest respect for Martyn and the site, however, if you've got a loan that has ppi added, and it's signed pre 6th of April, 2007, don't go for the template letter, go and speak to a solicitor. There is a good chance that if the ppi has been mis-sold, the whole loan might be unenforceable in law and by only reclaiming the ppi, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

What you're looking for is a ppi premium of around £2k plus and the whole loan could disappear.

Theres plenty of solicitors who will work on a contingency fee basis, which used to known as 'No Win No Fee' - just make sure the solicitor has legal liability insurance.

Best of luck in reclaiming,

The Big Dog.

If you do this for a living can you give us some sort of clue as to how a loan is made unenforceable if you've signed to say you will pay it back?

booi666

maxdp wrote: »

Boo you mean like ting tong or tong ting:rotfl:

Yep summat like that:rotfl:

TheBigDog

Okay,

What we are looking at here is Section 18 of the Consumer Credit Act and prescribed terms under the same act, which, prior to April, 2007, had a wonderful section in it - which is S127 (3).

S18 of the act concerns restricted and unrestricted credit, which affects a massive amount of loans, and, as I'm sure any poster on here will know, s127(3) states that a court cannot enforce an agreement unless the agreement has the required prescribed terms (amount of credit, repayment terms and APR) - these terms cannot be either missing from the agreement nor can they be incorrect.

PPI is classed as an insurance product, therefore, the inclusion of the ppi on the loan agreement does NOT affect the APR on the loan.

To put it simply, lets say Mr. A and Mr B. went to the bank today, and they both took out loans for £10k and were offered the same interest rate. We'll say for arguments sake, the interest rate offered is 9% on both loans, but Mr A was told he had to have the ppi to get the loan. Both APR's would be the same.

If the ppi has been mis-sold, it can then be argued in court that the premium should be classed as a charge for credit, which will then severely affect the APR - then you have a prescribed term that it incorrect and then the lender has a huge problem on their hands.

TBD

dreamer33

Dealwithit wrote: »

why ask me a tax enquiry


in answer to your"who is the man". YOU will never know. that I am certain of from previous posts:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Ok pmsl:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:I know its not you (the MAN that is lmao)

booi666

TheBigDog wrote: »

Okay,

What we are looking at here is Section 18 of the Consumer Credit Act and prescribed terms under the same act, which, prior to April, 2007, had a wonderful section in it - which is S127 (3).

S18 of the act concerns restricted and unrestricted credit, which affects a massive amount of loans, and, as I'm sure any poster on here will know, s127(3) states that a court cannot enforce an agreement unless the agreement has the required prescribed terms (amount of credit, repayment terms and APR) - these terms cannot be either missing from the agreement nor can they be incorrect.

PPI is classed as an insurance product, therefore, the inclusion of the ppi on the loan agreement does NOT affect the APR on the loan.

To put it simply, lets say Mr. A and Mr B. went to the bank today, and they both took out loans for £10k and were offered the same interest rate. We'll say for arguments sake, the interest rate offered is 9% on both loans, but Mr A was told he had to have the ppi to get the loan. Both APR's would be the same.

If the ppi has been mis-sold, it can then be argued in court that the premium should be classed as a charge for credit, which will then severely affect the APR - then you have a prescribed term that it incorrect and then the lender has a huge problem on their hands.

TBD

Mines a secured loan does this make a difference,

Im just waiting for my info to come back so i can read my agreement as i dont have it anymore:eek:

Dealwithit

dreamer33 wrote: »

Ok pmsl:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:I know its not you (the MAN that is lmao)

You know its not me (the Man that is lmao). Totally confusing. Like most of your posts

booi666

Dealwithit wrote: »

You know its not me (the Man that is lmao). Totally confusing. Like most of your posts

Do you have anything interesting to say dealwithshit:D

TheBigDog

Boo,

Because it's a secured loan it makes it a better case - who is the loan with?

dreamer33

Dealwithit wrote: »

You know its not me (the Man that is lmao). Totally confusing. Like most of your posts

Ok no problem:beer: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: