PPI Reclaiming Discussion part 4

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Hi Marshallka

Cheers.;)

Thought I would post up again, as added some more info from the last time and now thinking about going the mis selling side of it instead of the rebate.

The letter received confirms they used the rule of 78 on the whole loan with the ppi to calculate it.

Who are you making the complaint against? Have you spoken to FOS?

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

rule 78 calculator here.
http://brian-stewart.orpheusweb.co.uk/credit/javascript/equalr78-prr.htm

If it was used on the whole loan your settlement would have been

24684.76

but you settled

23,646.04

so you had some more interest rebated.

Will get my head around this later on, cheers for the above calculator Marshallka.;)

They confirm that the rebate was that of £1,533.69, then after rebate it was that of £23,646.04.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Thanks for this Tiggrae, yes I think I am starting to see what you mean on this, was reading some more of the paperwork.
Am going to try for the mis selling, fingers crossed.;)

Can you explain it to me then Di??

I don't know how this loan was worked as the ones I had back for misselling form Co-op all worked out to the penny from the rule 78 calculator and also FP one too.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Who are you making the complaint against? Have you spoken to FOS?

Have a Deloittes questionnaire to complete must get that in as soon as poss, still waiting to hear from the FOS, if we not heard by the end of the day, hubby is going to contact them.;)

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Can you explain it to me then Di??

I don't know how this loan was worked as the ones I had back for misselling form Co-op all worked out to the penny from the rule 78 calculator and also FP one too.

Will get the paperwork back out again later Marshallka, but when Tiggrae mentioned this risk thing, I had read this on a part of my paperwork, will check it again later on.;)

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Have a Deloittes questionnaire to complete must get that in as soon as poss, still waiting to hear from the FOS, if we not heard by the end of the day, hubby is going to contact them.;)

Its with the FSCS then? I thought they could only help if sold after 14th January, 2005? This will give hope to others then who were sold before then. Glad its being sorted for you.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Its with the FSCS then? I thought they could only help if sold after 14th January, 2005? This will give hope to others then who were sold before then. Glad its being sorted for you.

Sorry to confuse you Marshallka, I should have made it more clear , I received a form from Deloittes to complete in regards of Twopart, that came through today and they asked if we can send this back for asap, so will get on with that now and get the endeavour stuff back out later.;)

I wish the FSCS could deal with this one, it would save lots of hassle lol. X

marshallka

HBOS told us that it used the rule of 78 method to calculate rebates on single-
premium policies. It said that the rule recognized the way in which insurance risk and
expenses were incurred over the lifetime of the policy up to termination. Because the
outstanding loan amount is large at the beginning of the loan and small towards the
end, and due to the upfront nature of expenses, for example selling costs and placing
the policy on risk
,
the risk being covered by the insurance per unit of time is higher at
the beginning of the policy than it is at the end. HBOS said that the rule of 78
reflected this pattern. We accepted this argument as being valid for policies where a
condition can be covered for the life of the loan (for example, most providers offer
insurance in the event of accident or sickness for the duration of the event, up to the
life of the loan or five years, whichever is shorter). However, it could be contended
that the argument is only partially valid in circumstances where insurance is paid for
up to 12 months (for example, in the case of most unemployment claims); in this
case the level of risk borne by the insurer is the same until the last year of the policy,
when the risk decreases because there is less than a year left to insure


An extract from the competition commission report about its use and "RISK". Its not a valid argument really......

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:jes8zi5ThkMJ:www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/2009/fulltext/542_5_2.pdf+rule+78+used+in+PPI+rebate+and+risk&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

But it proves above rule 78 was not used or at least on the whole loan??? Can you work it out (working it back as well on the loan) tiggrae as I work out due back about £3K for misselling. The rest was rebated among the rebate and interest rebate on the PPI.

If rule 78 had been used in the PPI would it not be £2928.16 that was among the settlement figure just for the PPI and then add the £400 repayments. So £3.5k back plus stat int.

is this a calculation to give back the money now - sorry been off for a while, the difference could be that the cheeky blighters are trying to charge an administration charge / risk element - I've had them try 22% just the other week !!!

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

Can you explain it to me then Di??

I don't know how this loan was worked as the ones I had back for misselling form Co-op all worked out to the penny from the rule 78 calculator and also FP one too.

the following is part of a ppi policy doc it's a table for working out early termination rebates - it gives months cancelled and what % you'll be rebated of the overall policy - as you'll see if you rebate after only the 3rd month you'll have to pay 91.75% back as they only rebate you 8.25%

MC - %
1 - 8.75
2 - 8.50
3 - 8.25

6 - 7.75

12 - 6

24 - 3
36 - 0