PPI Reclaiming Discussion part 4

marshallka

dialysis wrote: »

Picture could and probably would come after us for the shortfall but when we go bankrupt the shortfall would go onto the bankruptcy as there would be no property to secure against. I am not too sure about your other question.

I thought it was 12 years after they can ask for their money back that is why you could really do with contacting the media about this.

How long after the repossession can lenders seek the recovery of the debt?

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a lender legally has 12 years to contact you to begin the process of seeking repayment of a shortfall debt; this period is usually 5 years in Scotland.

However, lenders are committed to fair and sympathetic treatment of people who have suffered repossession, and accept that individuals should not face long delays before being contacted to discuss repaying the shortfall. Most lenders will contact you fairly soon after possession to try to agree to a manageable arrangement for repaying all or some of the debt.

Lenders who are members of the Council of Mortgage Lenders voluntarily agreed from 11 February 2000 to begin all recovery action for a shortfall within six years of the sale of a repossessed property. If your property was taken into possession and sold more than six years ago, and you have not been contacted by your lender to recover any outstanding debt, you will not now be asked to pay the shortfall. In Scotland, lenders will begin recovery action within five years.



But reading this it looks like 6 years now. It definately used to be 12 years but if they owe you your PPI and you take it through the courts then you only have 6 years to ask for this back which seems a little unfair. Another law that is fair to the lender but not the consumer.

Just make sure you spend and enjoy any money you have within the next 6 years is my advice here. They can't have what you have not got.

pinknico

I hope dialysis that your move to your new place runs smoothly and that the bankruptcy makes it a new beginning. Wishing you all good things. xx

dialysis

marshallka wrote: »

I thought it was 12 years after they can ask for their money back that is why you could really do with contacting the media about this.

How long after the repossession can lenders seek the recovery of the debt?

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a lender legally has 12 years to contact you to begin the process of seeking repayment of a shortfall debt; this period is usually 5 years in Scotland.

However, lenders are committed to fair and sympathetic treatment of people who have suffered repossession, and accept that individuals should not face long delays before being contacted to discuss repaying the shortfall. Most lenders will contact you fairly soon after possession to try to agree to a manageable arrangement for repaying all or some of the debt.

Lenders who are members of the Council of Mortgage Lenders voluntarily agreed from 11 February 2000 to begin all recovery action for a shortfall within six years of the sale of a repossessed property. If your property was taken into possession and sold more than six years ago, and you have not been contacted by your lender to recover any outstanding debt, you will not now be asked to pay the shortfall. In Scotland, lenders will begin recovery action within five years.



But reading this it looks like 6 years now. It definately used to be 12 years but if they owe you your PPI and you take it through the courts then you only have 6 years to ask for this back which seems a little unfair. Another law that is fair to the lender but not the consumer.

Just make sure you spend and enjoy any money you have within the next 6 years is my advice here. They can't have what you have not got.

It does read like it is 6 years. I am a bit confused though if I go bankrupt and the shortfall goes on the BR can Picture still chase me for the money for six years? or will it go with the bankruptcy?

dialysis

pinknico wrote: »

I cant believe we are still waiting for them to decide what is mis sold in the eyes of FSCS. The FOS are upholding 99.999999% of single premiums, all Pictures are single premiums end of story.
GIVE US OUR MONEY. (sorry for shouting!)

It is appauling that we have had to wait this long The FOS have upheld our complaints end of they should go with their decision and pay up. Not only are we in financial hardship through Picture, we are through the FSCS too.

marshallka

dialysis wrote: »

It does read like it is 6 years. I am a bit confused though if I go bankrupt and the shortfall goes on the BR can Picture still chase me for the money for six years? or will it go with the bankruptcy?

I have no idea if you go bankrupt but I do know it used to be 12 years that they took money from you after a shortfall. It does read like its 6 years now and that is new to me. It seemed so wrong that if you have a claim against them for misselling and you have to go through the courts you can back date your claim 6 years (as the limitation act applies after that) BUT if you owe them money they can come after you for 12 years. I know this only applies to secured loans but most of us with the big loans had them secured to our property.

I wish you the very best and maybe this will be a move that changes your lives for the better. I certainly hopeso. New Beginnings. :beer:

stereo_mike

marshallka wrote: »

Thanks for this stereo mike. So I take it then that the dates are still the same in that FOS can only look at complaints within their jurisdiction then and not as someone posted ALL complaints?

As regards the being patient and if you are not then your complaint gets put bottom of the pile I think that that is disgraceful as some actually need to the money to help out now and it could be too late (as with Dialysis below) in a years time. Repossessions/missed loan payments etc have devistating affects on credit rating for a few years and it can take years to get back on your feet after.


Can you just clarify the "ALL" PPi complaints regardless of dates bit for us?

There is still no change in what the FOS will look at, they are ceratinly not adjudicating on all complaints.

marshallka

stereo_mike wrote: »

There is still no change in what the FOS will look at, they are ceratinly not adjudicating on all complaints.

Thanks for that clarification stereo mike.

I have asked you before but wondered if you knew this. I have a complaint in with FOS about unfair rebate and its against the insurer as FOS advised me to do. They have not protested it so at least it may be looked into but have you ever known of these complaints before?

stereo_mike

marshallka wrote: »

I have no idea if you go bankrupt but I do know it used to be 12 years that they took money from you after a shortfall. It does read like its 6 years now and that is new to me. It seemed so wrong that if you have a claim against them for misselling and you have to go through the courts you can back date your claim 6 years (as the limitation act applies after that) BUT if you owe them money they can come after you for 12 years. I know this only applies to secured loans but most of us with the big loans had them secured to our property.

I wish you the very best and maybe this will be a move that changes your lives for the better. I certainly hopeso. New Beginnings. :beer:

For mortgages the time limit is 12 years.

stereo_mike

marshallka wrote: »

Thanks for that clarification stereo mike.

I have asked you before but wondered if you knew this. I have a complaint in with FOS about unfair rebate and its against the insurer as FOS advised me to do. They have not protested it so at least it may be looked into but have you ever known of these complaints before?

The unfair rebate should be covered by the FOS as the FSA ruling on refunds came out in late 2007 (i think). Also your insurer is more likely to have been covered by GISC, if your policy was taken out before Jan 05.

The main issue with refunds is what the FOS classes as unfair. Many insurers got agreement from the FSA as what classed as a fair rebate, therefore if the FOS try to uphold a complaint, the insurer justs waves the agreement with the FSA in their faces, although not all insurers did this.

marshallka

stereo_mike wrote: »

The unfair rebate should be covered by the FOS as the FSA ruling on refunds came out in late 2007 (i think). Also your insurer is more likely to have been covered by GISC, if your policy was taken out before Jan 05.

The main issue with refunds is what the FOS classes as unfair. Many insurers got agreement from the FSA as what classed as a fair rebate, therefore if the FOS try to uphold a complaint, the insurer justs waves the agreement with the FSA in their faces, although not all insurers did this.

Yeah read that one today but how can they justify charging over £4K (that does include interest and was rule 78 rebated) for a policy no longer of use. I know this is the first case from what I can see of "just" unfair rebate and I have not seen anymore on here but I have used unfair contract terms in that I was not to know how this rule 78 worked (and still learning now). Also there was no cooling off period beyond the agreement of 7 days from signing and our policy had "life insurance" included. I don't know what dates this actually had any rule if they did. I will just have to be "patient" I suppose. I wonder if FOS can actually negotiate a fair rebate and also would the interest charged at settlement on the loan of the PPI be included. I have a passage from another case of FOS for misselling whereby FOS says they do look at the interest. I will bring this up if they do not and argue it.

Also can the insurer be made resposible for misselling. I know of others on here in the same boat. Didn't insurers have a duty to make sure that the people that sell their polices are fit to do so. It would open up a whole new avenue for claimers.