PPI Reclaiming Discussion part 4

babyj9

Ok then Stereo Mike can you please give me some inside info? What chance have I got in re claiming for a loan that was taken out in 2001 and completed in 2006. I was most definately miss sold as I wasn't actually aware I was paying ppi. I've discovered that Hartwell were not governed by the FOS or FLA - what would be my next move?

stereo_mike

babyj9 wrote: »

Ok then Stereo Mike can you please give me some inside info? What chance have I got in re claiming for a loan that was taken out in 2001 and completed in 2006. I was most definately miss sold as I wasn't actually aware I was paying ppi. I've discovered that Hartwell were not governed by the FOS or FLA - what would be my next move?

Your only hope is to take it to court, although this is unlikely due to the limitation ruling, as your PPI cover started in 2001. You would have to proove that you only became aware about your mis-selling in the last 3 years, however this is unliekly on the complaint issue you have raised as the agreement from the lender probably detailed the PPI cover at some point, and therefore you were actually aware of the PPI policy prior to 3 years ago.

babyj9

I was told by the salesman at pos that insurance was essential or my loan would not be approved - at no time was it ever explained to me what the insurance was for and how much I would be paying - very stupid of me - i agree. It was only when I lost my job in 2004 and fell behind with payments that I was advised to make a claim on my ppi by a call centre member of staff, who was the first person who explained exactly what I was paying £50 a month for. I took her advice but my claim was refused yet they still continued to take my ppi whilst I was unemployed
In all the paperwork I have got it does not detail any terms of PPI apart from a form from GE Money with the PPI box already ticked - and un signed by me???? Surely I have a strong case?

stereo_mike

babyj9 wrote: »

I was told by the salesman at pos that insurance was essential or my loan would not be approved - at no time was it ever explained to me what the insurance was for and how much I would be paying - very stupid of me - i agree. It was only when I lost my job in 2004 and fell behind with payments that I was advised to make a claim on my ppi by a call centre member of staff, who was the first person who explained exactly what I was paying £50 a month for. I took her advice but my claim was refused yet they still continued to take my ppi whilst I was unemployed
In all the paperwork I have got it does not detail any terms of PPI apart from a form from GE Money with the PPI box already ticked - and un signed by me???? Surely I have a strong case?

Unless the sales call was recorded you have no chance regarding the "insurance was essential to get the loan" issue. You have just admitted that you were aware of the PPI in 2004, therefore the chance of you taking this to court is now even smaller. Why did you not complain in 2004?? Why was your claim refused?? When did you cancel your insurance?? Does the premium only cover accident, sickness and unemployment or is there death benefit as well??

Sorry for all the questions, but this is what I would be asking if I investigated your complaint

babyj9

No the call was not recorded it was in person with no whitnesses. I didn't complain back in 2004 as I was not aware I could and felt that this was standard practice. My policy covered unemployment but it was refused as I was dismissed from my job for not reaching targets, not made redundant or sick. I made my first call in December 2004 and struggled with the payments for the next 3 months - in March 2005 my ppi was cancelled. I know I should have acted faster and could have handled it better but I had other things going on at the time like the break up of my marriage, house re possesion and a sick child. It sounds like from your experience I am wasting my time in pursuing this and should just give up and write it off as a dumb move?

Turboman

stereo_mike wrote: »

Your only hope is to take it to court, although this is unlikely due to the limitation ruling, as your PPI cover started in 2001. You would have to proove that you only became aware about your mis-selling in the last 3 years, however this is unliekly on the complaint issue you have raised as the agreement from the lender probably detailed the PPI cover at some point, and therefore you were actually aware of the PPI policy prior to 3 years ago.

How does this Limitation issue actually work Stereo_Mike?

Assuming genuine mis-selling case, can the user not claim for PPI Payments actually made +8% from 6 yrs ago-ie May 2003-irrespective of when the Loan was actually underwritten?

stereo_mike

babyj9 wrote: »

No the call was not recorded it was in person with no whitnesses. I didn't complain back in 2004 as I was not aware I could and felt that this was standard practice. My policy covered unemployment but it was refused as I was dismissed from my job for not reaching targets, not made redundant or sick. I made my first call in December 2004 and struggled with the payments for the next 3 months - in March 2005 my ppi was cancelled. I know I should have acted faster and could have handled it better but I had other things going on at the time like the break up of my marriage, house re possesion and a sick child. It sounds like from your experience I am wasting my time in pursuing this and should just give up and write it off as a dumb move?

At the risk of being totally shot down, you have to decide for yourself when to stop, you would have to balance up whether the potential cost of taking it to court outweighs the benefit you might receive, and I would stress the word might. As your claim is quite small, it would go through the small claims court, therefore case law is not so important, but you could still lose more money, no claims firm or Solicitors will pay your court fees for you (no win no fee company's), and at the end of the day these firms have nothing to lose, but you do!!!

marshallka

stereo_mike wrote: »

Unless the sales call was recorded you have no chance regarding the "insurance was essential to get the loan" issue. You have just admitted that you were aware of the PPI in 2004, therefore the chance of you taking this to court is now even smaller. Why did you not complain in 2004?? Why was your claim refused?? When did you cancel your insurance?? Does the premium only cover accident, sickness and unemployment or is there death benefit as well??

Sorry for all the questions, but this is what I would be asking if I investigated your complaint

Some people were aware of PPI but did not understand what these single premiums were in that you pay interest over the whole term of the loan and also the PPI was sold as a condition to most people. I would say the poster here had the complaint refused because the firm knows that there is very little chance of them taking the issue to court as they were not regulated at the time and also they could most probably use the time barring issues too. Its so annoying that the FOS have no jurisidiction in cases like this.

stereo_mike

Turboman wrote: »

How does this Limitation issue actually work Stereo_Mike?

Assuming genuine mis-selling case, can the user not claim for PPI Payments actually made +8% from 6 yrs ago-ie May 2003-irrespective of when the Loan was actually underwritten?

The limitation act applies to when the insurance (i.e. what you are complaining about) was incepted, some firms actually contest that the date should be from when the advice is provided, but this is one for the courts to decide.

If your policy was incepted (say) on 25th May 2003, you would have until this date to submit your case to court, or you have to apply for protective proceedings.

marshallka

Turboman wrote: »

How does this Limitation issue actually work Stereo_Mike?

Assuming genuine mis-selling case, can the user not claim for PPI Payments actually made +8% from 6 yrs ago-ie May 2003-irrespective of when the Loan was actually underwritten?

The limitations act works like this

If you only just became aware of the issue of misselling then the 6 year rule can be overuled at the FOS. (providing that the firm was within the jurisdiction of the FOS at the time of the sale. ie most banks were actually part of the old banking ombudsman). The courts can also look at this too as far as I was aware.

One of the exceptions to this rule is contained in section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 which provides that, where any fact relevant to a claimant's cause of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant, the limitation period will not begin to run until the claimant has (or could have) discovered the concealment.
Section 32(2) provides that a deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty.

There is a 3 year rule saying that "when you ought to have been aware of" misselling etc.

The 6 year rule, when you have 6 years to make a claim in court etc.

And this can be overuled as I thought like the FOS do in that when you actually became aware of the issue.

That is my understanding.

Correct me if I wrong.