PPI Reclaiming Discussion part 4

smitchy73

cappo wrote: »

I've been fighting LTSB for the last 6 months keewee they've been telling me i did'nt have ppi when in fact i knew i had it on all my loans and credit cards with them, guess what got an email yesterday saying they'd made a mistake and they were sending me out an offer for the loan next week, stick with it they will say anything to avoid paying out.

Brilliant news cappo, well done son.

for all you newbies out there is the dedication you need to have, when you know something about your ppi and the bar stewards deny it, good to have them by the short and curlies.

Cappo, I hope they'll be giving you extra for the lies they have been telling you and the distress this has caused you.:j:j:j:beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer:

MattyA

beamerguy wrote: »

If you have received monies back covering mi-sold PPI 's, the banks are admitting they were at fault.

As they were at fault and this is covered by The Fraud Act 2006, what damage did they cause for you, were you harrassed by debt collectors ?
Did it create a problem on your credt rating/score ??

If it did, you are entitled to compensation, how much will depend what you want to claim.

If you have been a victim of bad behaviour from the Banks, now is the time to claim damages from them

Very interesting beamerguy.

I have had a number of success's to date - could this be round 2 of the battle?
I stopped paying them when I started my claims as it was my belief that owed me much more than I owed them..... and yes they defaulted me,rang me at home and work,passed the debt on to DCA's and even paid me the odd visit or two at home.
No of which was pleasant or necessary.

I would love to squeeze em for a bit more - just for the hell of it TBH.

Matty

The_Marksman

cappo wrote: »

I've been fighting LTSB for the last 6 months keewee they've been telling me i did'nt have ppi when in fact i knew i had it on all my loans and credit cards with them, guess what got an email yesterday saying they'd made a mistake and they were sending me out an offer for the loan next week, stick with it they will say anything to avoid paying out.

Well Done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :beer:

virtuous

Hi Di3004 and Niggly,

I have been away for sometime. I have been fighting with Halifax all this time, Niggly do you remember you calculated the second loan refund for me, they claim that their calculation is right and that if I do not agree I should go to Ombudsman. The other thing I am still fighting with them is sending my money to Insolvency Receiver even after sending them the Discharge Letter. They say that it is now my responsibility to contact the Official Receiver if I disagree on this. First of all, they are the ones who contacted them. I finished business with them when I was discharged. Could you please help me here. I keep sending all these emails to their Chief Executive and all he does is forward them to their Customer Relations who also in return keep sending me letters.

loutalucat_2

Hi All, can I ask for a bit of advice? I had two credit cards with natwest taken out in 1992, one cancelled in 2010 as natwest changed it from visa to mastercard and I ended up with 2 identical cards!

I have been trying to reclaim ppi on both cards which I discovered I had in 2009! I sent off my £1 in June which natwest returned as they could find no paperwork and said that as they could not find an agreement they were terminating the remaining card and could I send it back to them cut in two - did that, (although they haven't got round to cancelling it yet just reduced the limit to £350).

Anyway have now received an offer of £669.57, letter refers to only one credit card number and says they are willing to refund premiums paid between 16 August 2001 and 24th October 2009 (when I cancelled the PPI).

Don't know whether to accept this or not, does anyone know why it's dated from 16th August 2001 - is this as far back as they go? Would like to think another letter is coming with an offer on the other card but have a feeling this may be it!

beamerguy

MattyA wrote: »

Very interesting beamerguy.

I have had a number of success's to date - could this be round 2 of the battle?
I stopped paying them when I started my claims as it was my belief that owed me much more than I owed them..... and yes they defaulted me,rang me at home and work,passed the debt on to DCA's and even paid me the odd visit or two at home.
No of which was pleasant or necessary.

I would love to squeeze em for a bit more - just for the hell of it TBH.

Matty

Hi Matty, if you PM me with you email address, I will send you a copy of the claim for damages form, infact anyone can ask for it.

With regards to debt collectors, especially those who try to visit, this is what you tell them.

"Please be advised that I will only communicate with you by email . I have noted your repeated attempts to contact me by mail over the past few weeks/months and these have been duly logged by time and date.

Furthermore, should it be your intention to arrange a “doorstep call”, please be advised that under OFT rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make such an appointment with you.

There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd [1959] 2 QB 384
. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and, if you do so, you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance."

RuthnJasper

Well... thanks to Cappo (and MagpieCottage, for the post about the FSA rule which came in very handy!)... here is my appeal letter to M&S Money...:

Thank you for your letter of 7 October, in which you reject my complaint of mis-sold PPI on the above credit card account.

I appreciate the time and effort you took to investigate my complaint. However, I wish to appeal against your finding on the following basis:

On the application form, a copy of which you enclosed with the pertinent section highlighted (copy included with this letter), you will see that the last line – in bold lettering with a sample cross beside the box – states “We strongly recommend you take cover by ticking this box”. I have sought independent financial advice and am told that this emboldened statement constitutes an “advised/recommended sale”.

In addition, the credit card and its benefits were being promoted in-store by a Marks and Spencer representative. Whether they were specifically representing home-ware items, groceries, money or lingerie is of little relevance – their primary duty that day was recommending M&S credit cards to customers, encouraging us to complete the application form, and were representing the Marks and Spencer company as a whole.

To answer your points about why I never previously queried the PPI, firstly, as outlined above you strongly recommended that the cover was taken out and, secondly, FSA Rule DISP App 3.3.6G says, "The firm should not reject a complaint because the complainant failed to exercise the right to cancel the policy."

I should therefore be grateful if you would reconsider my complaint and my request to refund the full amount of PPI paid on this credit card account, plus interest, in accordance with the FSA’s rulings.

I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Fingers (and claws, in Jasper-dog's case) crossed...

beamerguy

RuthnJasper wrote: »

Well... thanks to Cappo (and MagpieCottage, for the post about the FSA rule which came in very handy!)... here is my appeal letter to M&S Money...:

Thank you for your letter of 7 October, in which you reject my complaint of mis-sold PPI on the above credit card account.

I appreciate the time and effort you took to investigate my complaint. However, I wish to appeal against your finding on the following basis:

On the application form, a copy of which you enclosed with the pertinent section highlighted (copy included with this letter), you will see that the last line – in bold lettering with a sample cross beside the box – states “We strongly recommend you take cover by ticking this box”. I have sought independent financial advice and am told that this emboldened statement constitutes an “advised/recommended sale”.

In addition, the credit card and its benefits were being promoted in-store by a Marks and Spencer representative. Whether they were specifically representing home-ware items, groceries, money or lingerie is of little relevance – their primary duty that day was recommending M&S credit cards to customers, encouraging us to complete the application form, and were representing the Marks and Spencer company as a whole.

To answer your points about why I never previously queried the PPI, firstly, as outlined above you strongly recommended that the cover was taken out and, secondly, FSA Rule DISP App 3.3.6G says, "The firm should not reject a complaint because the complainant failed to exercise the right to cancel the policy."

I should therefore be grateful if you would reconsider my complaint and my request to refund the full amount of PPI paid on this credit card account, plus interest, in accordance with the FSA’s rulings.

I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Fingers (and claws, in Jasper-dog's case) crossed...

Great letter but also say "that IF you sell/market a financial services product, the seller must be licenced by the FSA. Please tell me the sellers licence number"

RuthnJasper

beamerguy wrote: »

Great letter but also say "that IF you sell/market a financial services product, the seller must be licenced by the FSA. Please tell me the sellers licence number"

Thank you Beamerguy - you're a star! x

beamerguy

RuthnJasper wrote: »

Thank you Beamerguy - you're a star! x

thanks but everyone should understand that not every "tom !!!!!! or harry" can sell a fincancial services product without being licenced. Therefore, shop staff for example if not licenced are acting illegally and to that end as they did not have a licence to sell the product, the contract is not binding