No Agreement

Foenix

petermb wrote: »

Most claim firms are charging a fee up front. The more people who believe their loan is unenforceable the better as more people will part with their hard earned money.

Unenforceable loans exist of course but not on the scale that is being bandied about.
It is hard to say what sort of percentage is more acurate but I think 30% of loans prior to April 2007 is far more likely.

I respect your professional opinion but how possibly could you come up with any figure on a national scale unless you have some hand in the official statistics?

Not a sarcastic comment BTW merely a question.

Foenix

Just thought, I don't even need to use an unenforceable agreement anyway, the two lenders one is for bank charges and the other fraud.

petermb_2

Foenix wrote: »

I respect your professional opinion but how possibly could you come up with any figure on a national scale unless you have some hand in the official statistics?

Not a sarcastic comment BTW merely a question.

I am just speaking as I find, from experience.
Dont hold me to the number I quoted. I just wanted to point you in the direction of a far more realistic ball park.

~Brock~

petermb wrote: »

I am just speaking as I find, from experience.
Dont hold me to the number I quoted. I just wanted to point you in the direction of a far more realistic ball park.

In addition to Peter's comment, the OFT and Ministry of Justice have themselves sent a very clear message to the claims industry about giving the public misleading figures and expectations. The latest one is here.

Regarding your post about Welcome, Foenix, if yours is the case I saw earlier today where a second agreement had been set up on Experian without your consent then I agree - that is undefendable, and good luck in fighting it (although I don't think luck needs to play a part).

I am certainly not here defending those sort of practices, but there are lenders who certainly do not fall into that category - which is the point I was alluding to.

Rearding your point about PPI, Peter - single premium policies have been around certainly since the early 1980's, when I first encountered them. There was, and indeed still is, nothing illegal about them providing and I do mean providing, the correct information has been provided at the point of sale and the customer has therefore made an informed decision to buy it.

Many contracts of insurance can be bought for a single premium - car insurance being an obvious example. One of the benefits is that they provide certainty of cover and protection against premium increases (monthly PPI premiums are going through the roof at the moment).

I do know where you are coming from in terms of certain industry practice in respect of single premium PPI, and again it is a case of sales practices spoiling what was otherwise a perfectly acceptable product. I just don't agree with tarring everyone with this brush until the individual evidence proves otherwise.

Finally - Cashpig - I only picked your post apart because you made a number of points that I wanted to respond to individually.

Cashpig74

what makes you say 30%? just out of interest - I mean if you're guessing then that's kinda the same as saying any amount..

Foenix

~Brock~ wrote: »

Regarding your post about Welcome, Foenix, if yours is the case I saw earlier today where a second agreement had been set up on Experian without your consent then I agree - that is undefendable, and good luck in fighting it (although I don't think luck needs to play a part)..

Yes that is what happened to me and thank you I intend to make things very difficult for them.

Cashpig74

Ah ok Brock - no worries..

And as for ppl looking down that route to make agreements unenforceable - good on them. I'm sure its not a "cant be bothered" thing - more of an opportunity to improve your finances legally. Sure, the banks "lose out" - but they are insured for kind of thing etc...and it's not the same as stealing money from your grandma...

I dont understand this moral objection - its a legal contract that has holes in it - making it essentially a non-entity. Only guilt would stop someone from using that situation to their advantage.

I think it's crazy not to personally..

~Brock~

Cashpig74 wrote: »

what makes you say 30%? just out of interest - I mean if you're guessing then that's kinda the same as saying any amount..

I doubt that anyone knows the real answer. It will vary from company to company based on how careful they have been with their administration.

What appears clear though, is that the claims management companies appear to be strangely silent on the matter of success stories despite no doubt having raked in £1000's in 'up front' fees.

Cashpig74

Yes - i have spoken toa number of claims handlers and alot of them have only recently been set up - even one back in August last year still has no settlement outcome. However, if their legal teams (once the agreements have been examined) see no flaws, then the cases are refunded. The cases I spoke about with this company has had no refund situations so they are all going through but it does take a long time to resolve. This is why I think there have been actual success so far - no sucesses but no failures either.

Foenix

~Brock~ wrote: »

I doubt that anyone knows the real answer. It will vary from company to company based on how careful they have been with their administration.

What appears clear though, is that the claims management companies appear to be strangely silent on the matter of success stories despite no doubt having raked in £1000's in 'up front' fees.

I have applied to a company to tackle the Welcome Finance PPI and NW bank charges. No win no fee they take 30% of whatever they win for you but I really wouldn't care if they took 99%, it's about the principle for me now, I don't take kind to being kicked when I'm down.

I know I sound angry and that's because I am, probably best to use some experts because I just want to call WF right now and let them know what for. Grrrr