PPI Reclaiming discussion Part III

marshallka

dreamer33 wrote: »

The only thing is mine was over £25k and not regulated, however the rebate was calculated according to the rule of 78 under the cca 1974. That was the only thing that was regulated.

Even though it was not regulated they have still mis-sold the ppi.

Right, well they should not have used this rule in your settlement anyway

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_credit/oft192v2.pdf

Early redemption

57 The July guidelines made clear the Office’s view that use of the Rule of 78 in the nonstatus
lending market can be unfair and oppressive as it tends to produce a settlement
figure which is excessive relative to the amount borrowed and repayments made and
19
relative to the costs incurred by the lender. Lenders should discontinue its use at the
earliest opportunity, and should not apply it rigidly to existing loan agreements
without some form of cap to ensure that payments on early redemption are not
excessive.
58 The above conclusions apply solely in relation to unregulated non-status loans, as the
position for regulated loans is governed by the Rebate Regulations made under section
95 of the Consumer Credit Act. The Director General has written recently to DTI
Ministers, urging a review of those Regulations. Consideration should be given in any
such review to the Office’s recommendations in its report on Consumer Credit
Deregulation in June 1994, and to subsequent comments on that report. Further
announcements may be made in due course regarding the wider use of the Rule of 78
in all types of credit agreement.
59 Use of the Rule of 78 in unregulated loans is liable to challenge under the Unfair
Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (from 1 July 1995). As indicated above,
Schedule 3 to those Regulations includes, as an example of terms which may be
regarded as unfair, terms which have “the object or effect of ... requiring any
consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in
compensation”. In the Office’s view, the application of the Rule of 78 in mortgage
transactions can result in a rebate to the borrower which is disproportionately low, and
so the borrower may end up paying a disproportionately high sum to redeem the
mortgage. A term to which the Regulations apply shall not be binding on the

consumer if it is unfair.

marshallka

owlet wrote: »

They took a week to ten days to send out the questionaire, but I'm not under any illusions that the rest will be that fast lol.

The questionaire was pretty much repeating the info that was in the original letter,

Who the policy is with, policy number, start & finish dates, type of policy, how I applied, who it covered, did I have any dependants, have I claimed on the policy etc.

I have completed it and will post it tomorrow just so they can't stall on it by sending it back to me!

On the agreement, the PPI is listed separately to the main cash loan:

Loan Protect Loan £485.23 Cash Loan £2636.00
Total Payable £556.80 Total Payable £3027.00
Monthly Payment £9.28 Monthly Payment £50.45

Then under 'other financial information'

The total charge for credit (which is made up of interest) is

Loan Protect Loan £71.57
Cash Loan £391.00

Can I clarify that this is what is meant by a single premium? Where the PPI is paid in one lump sum at the beginning, by the means of an additional loan to which interest is applied? Sorry if I am being thick, just need to be armed with the facts!

Thanks guys, your help is very much appreciated!


Dreamer 33 I will get the telephone recordings, thank you!

A single premium is one which is really a loan to pay the PPI and therefore another loan on top of your orginal loan and with the same interest over the term as your original loan too.

If the questionarrie is the one asking all the questions about what was in place at the time of the loan etc then I would just write back that this information would have been useful at the beginning of the agreement but seems to be of no use now as you are already bound by it so totally irrelavant to it NOW. Also note to them that your complaint still stands.

owlet

marshallka wrote: »

A single premium is one which is really a loan to pay the PPI and therefore another loan on top of your orginal loan and with the same interest over the term as your original loan too.

If the questionarrie is the one asking all the questions about what was in place at the time of the loan etc then I would just write back that this information would have been useful at the beginning of the agreement but seems to be of no use now as you are already bound by it so totally irrelavant to it NOW. Also note to them that your complaint still stands.

Thanks Marshallka, I've got it now (I think lol). I will enclose a copy of my original letter I think to enforce it, although it didn't mention the single premium part.

I am going to be paying the loan off in a couple of weeks (2yrs into a 5yr loan) as I have just got a loan from Sainsburys. So I should be able to get a rebate on the 'unused' part of the loan for the PPI, as well as claiming back with interest the amounts I have already paid?

di3004

Hi there folks

Sorry i have not been on, my lappy has had it, I am not using my own my own right now, so I thought I would just leave a message to let you know I will return as soon as my computer problems are resolved. This problem had started yesterday, but something has blown inside my lappy now, I think it was living on borrowed time.

I have not had the chance to read through the posts - please accept my apologies, but will do when I get back, and I know Marshallka, Maxdp, Pinknico, Dreamer are here regular and others here are amazing and will help out.;)

Will be back as soon as possible folks, keep up the good work, catch you soon. Take care.:A

Di
xxxx

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Hi there folks

Sorry i have not been on, my lappy has had it, I am not using my own my own right now, so I thought I would just leave a message to let you know I will return as soon as my computer problems are resolved. This problem had started yesterday, but something has blown inside my lappy now, I think it was living on borrowed time.

I have not had the chance to read through the posts - please accept my apologies, but will do when I get back, and I know Marshallka, Maxdp, Pinknico, Dreamer are here regular and others here are amazing and will help out.;)

Will be back as soon as possible folks, keep up the good work, catch you soon. Take care.:A

Di
xxxx

Hope you get it sorted soon then Di.. . x

marshallka

owlet wrote: »

Thanks Marshallka, I've got it now (I think lol). I will enclose a copy of my original letter I think to enforce it, although it didn't mention the single premium part.

I am going to be paying the loan off in a couple of weeks (2yrs into a 5yr loan) as I have just got a loan from Sainsburys. So I should be able to get a rebate on the 'unused' part of the loan for the PPI, as well as claiming back with interest the amounts I have already paid?

If you are going for the misselling here then you would be put back into the position as if you never had the PPI at all which would be claiming back all the PPI and interest charged on it and also ask for 8% statutory interest as a court would award too.

davemchol

hi recently been on this thread concerning a Halifax Loan from January 2003.
Have recieved a photo copy of the loan which states:

Cash Loan £7200
total charge for credit for cash loan 2020.80
Insurance loan £1617.34
total interest on insurance 421.46

repayments 187.66 per month

Can anyone advise me on the next stage to take as the agreement was made over the phone but signed for at a local branch. I believe it has been missold as didnt understand how much the insurance would be and was possibly not given the alternative sum without insurance but am unsure of this as it was a long time ago.

spacecadets

Hello,
I have had a loan with first plus since 2003 and have had my complaint upheld by the fos. I am still awaiting figures back from fp with regards ppi refund and restructuring of loan and am keen to know what to expect to make sure they don't rip me off anymore than they have already!
My loan was for £35000 the ppi was £6995.50 on top.
the apr was 11.7% variable
I have made 66 payments so far.
The loan was taken out over 240 months.

Any help much appreciated.

dreamer33

marshallka wrote: »

Right, well they should not have used this rule in your settlement anyway

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_credit/oft192v2.pdf

Early redemption
57 The July guidelines made clear the Office’s view that use of the Rule of 78 in the nonstatus
lending market can be unfair and oppressive as it tends to produce a settlement
figure which is excessive relative to the amount borrowed and repayments made and
19
relative to the costs incurred by the lender. Lenders should discontinue its use at the
earliest opportunity, and should not apply it rigidly to existing loan agreements
without some form of cap to ensure that payments on early redemption are not
excessive.
58 The above conclusions apply solely in relation to unregulated non-status loans, as the
position for regulated loans is governed by the Rebate Regulations made under section
95 of the Consumer Credit Act. The Director General has written recently to DTI
Ministers, urging a review of those Regulations. Consideration should be given in any
such review to the Office’s recommendations in its report on Consumer Credit
Deregulation in June 1994, and to subsequent comments on that report. Further
announcements may be made in due course regarding the wider use of the Rule of 78
in all types of credit agreement.
59 Use of the Rule of 78 in unregulated loans is liable to challenge under the Unfair
Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (from 1 July 1995). As indicated above,
Schedule 3 to those Regulations includes, as an example of terms which may be
regarded as unfair, terms which have “the object or effect of ... requiring any
consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in
compensation”. In the Office’s view, the application of the Rule of 78 in mortgage
transactions can result in a rebate to the borrower which is disproportionately low, and
so the borrower may end up paying a disproportionately high sum to redeem the
mortgage. A term to which the Regulations apply shall not be binding on the

consumer if it is unfair.

I think I queried the before and printed off the guidlines, I quoted a few things from it and am sure but cant quite remember, they came back with they are guidlines and we dont have to follow them.

dreamer33

marshallka wrote: »

Right, well they should not have used this rule in your settlement anyway

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_credit/oft192v2.pdf

Early redemption
57 The July guidelines made clear the Office’s view that use of the Rule of 78 in the nonstatus
lending market can be unfair and oppressive as it tends to produce a settlement
figure which is excessive relative to the amount borrowed and repayments made and
19
relative to the costs incurred by the lender. Lenders should discontinue its use at the
earliest opportunity, and should not apply it rigidly to existing loan agreements
without some form of cap to ensure that payments on early redemption are not
excessive.
58 The above conclusions apply solely in relation to unregulated non-status loans, as the
position for regulated loans is governed by the Rebate Regulations made under section
95 of the Consumer Credit Act. The Director General has written recently to DTI
Ministers, urging a review of those Regulations. Consideration should be given in any
such review to the Office’s recommendations in its report on Consumer Credit
Deregulation in June 1994, and to subsequent comments on that report. Further
announcements may be made in due course regarding the wider use of the Rule of 78
in all types of credit agreement.
59 Use of the Rule of 78 in unregulated loans is liable to challenge under the Unfair
Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (from 1 July 1995). As indicated above,
Schedule 3 to those Regulations includes, as an example of terms which may be
regarded as unfair, terms which have “the object or effect of ... requiring any
consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in
compensation”. In the Office’s view, the application of the Rule of 78 in mortgage
transactions can result in a rebate to the borrower which is disproportionately low, and
so the borrower may end up paying a disproportionately high sum to redeem the
mortgage. A term to which the Regulations apply shall not be binding on the

consumer if it is unfair.

I think I queried the before and printed off the guidlines, I quoted a few things from it and am sure but cant quite remember, they came back with they are guidlines and we dont have to follow them.

Am gonna wait for my other replies and then enquire about this, I can go to fos with this one if I have to cause it was firstplus who done the settlement figure. Unfair terms, we were disadvantaged.