Urgent Help Needed - Court Says Pay £15,585.59 now to Funding Corporation

Tixy

If this info was detailed on the loan agreement that you signed then I'm not sure whether you will have a case or not - you should have been aware if you had read the document correctly. And without wanting to sound harsh you should not have signed an agreement without reading it first.

But anyway I would suggest you post a new thread on this section of the board -
Reclaim PPI & Other Insurance as they are the people who will be able to best advise.

PNPSUKNET

virtuous wrote: »

Hi there,
Is there anyone here with any experience dealing with The Funding Corporation personal loan mis-sold PPI. In February 2004, I phoned Funding Corporation for a personal loan and was approved straight away. I was told that the credit agreement was to be couried to my home for me to sign the following day, so the biker (courier) turned up at my home with the documents and stood there while I signed it and then took it back. I had no time to read the document at the time. Recently having read from Martin's newsletter, I asked them for a copy of my agreement which I received yesterday. They charged me PPI - £2,884.40, Loan £6,000 and interest £2,487.60 Total=11,352.00. I settled this loan on 30/6/2004 - I paid £9,252.73. I believe I stand a chance to claim PPI since I was not aware it was included in my loan. The loan was supposed to paid in 62 months. The APR 9.9% - can anyone here advise me on how to deal with them - complain - who to contact/address etc.

Too late over 6 years

AMILLIONDOLLARS

Also the original loan was for £8,000 plus interest. My sister has paid nearly £6,000 back (including repossession and sale of car). The amount of over £15,000 due now is for 10 years interest, 5 of which are 'up front' (for a period of time after the defaulted payment) which equals £10,000 plus £3,000 for PPI. So she owes £2,000 plus £10,000 interest plus £3,000 for PPI.

We would all be most grateful if anyone knows anyone who can help in any way. I can't believe a family can be at risk of being made homeless because they owe £2,000 on the original debt (plus the £10,000 interest and £3,000 PPI :mad: ) My sister is now looking into her work contract to see if she is allowed to go to the press for non work related matters as maybe that way she could get some help by a paper taking this on.

Your sister should present this breakdown when she attends court.

AMD

esmerellda

Wollerton v blackhorse would be very useful in this case, where similar ''sign here here and here'' and no discussion on PPI occured ... meant the ppi created an unfair relationship in the agreement.

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/9990-wallerton-v-black-horse-limited-unenforcable-agreement.htm

transcript http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?256046-Wollerton-v-Blackhorse-Finance&p=2881101&viewfull=1#post2881101

Relevant bit

Be that as it may, I find that the Claimant went with
his wife and grandson on Mrs. Wollerton’s half-day (Tuesday 27th September
2005) and that they called in at the Wakefield branch of Lloyds where a female
adviser produced the agreement and asked the Claimant to sign here, here and
here, without giving him time or the opportunity to read through the document
for himself before doing so. Contrary to Mr. Goodbody’s submission no. (iii)
summarised above, I think it unlikely that the Claimant was sent the document
at home and was able to read it at his leisure, because in that event I think it is
unlikely that he would have signed it in the wrong places. I find that although
the Claimant received a copy of the agreement at home after the acceptance
had been signed by the Defendants, there is no evidence that the Claimant read
it even at that stage (because he was not asked the question), but even if he
did, it would, I suspect, have been too late to go back on it.

36. In the light of the agreement between counsel as to the relevant law, I
repeat that I do not need to construe the Statute or the Regulations. The only
issue remaining is an issue of mixed fact and law, namely whether entry into the
PPI plan was a condition of the loan, and thus a “charge for credit”. In this
15
context I accept paragraph 6 of Mr. Salter’s submissions verbatim. In view of
my findings of fact, it must have been a condition, for it was required by the
Defendants without discussion or voluntary election, in the same way as the
other terms of the agreement were “required” – such as the rate of interest, the
APR, the monthly payments, the termination provisions and all the other terms
and conditions set out in small print on the back. It was, on my findings of fact,
inserted by the Defendants unilaterally, and the Claimant had no choice in the
matter.

37. In those circumstances the agreement is wholly unenforceable in law,
and I so declare. By the same token I dismiss the Counterclaim.

amersall

PNPSUKNET wrote: »

Too late over 6 years

This is incorrect, companies only hold data for 6 years, if you have the account numbers that is all you need to make a claim, i and others on the ppi reclaim forum have won mis sell from the 90s, i won one with just the settlement figures. Your reclaim is made from the moment you were aware that you were mis sold. A lot of people have only just realised that they were mis sold. And thanks to martin lewis they are getting this ppi back.

virtuous

Hi PNPSUKNET,

Many thanks for your reply.

I have written to Funding Corporation using Martin's letter templates and will wait to hear from them. Will let everyone know the results.

virtuous

Hi PNPSUKNET,

As promised to come back after receiving a letter from The Funding Corporation Ltd, below is the content of the letter:-

"Thank you for your letter dated 4 October 2010.

You entered into the Credit Agreement on or around 23 February 2004. The basis of your claim is that you were mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) on or around the same date. As more than 6 years have passed since the date of the alleged mis-selling of the PPI, your claim is statute barred pursuant to Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980.

Due to the date that you were sold PPI we also do not believe that your complaint falls under the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service."

Signed - Helen Scott - Complaints Officer"

What do you think I should do next PNPSUKNET? I need help and advise please.

virtuous

Hi Amersall,

Since The Funding Corporation were not playing ball, I contacted the FOS who said that although TFC were not regulated by FSA at the time (2004), there was another way and that I had a case, she said that the way around this is to go through the underwriters AXA, she sent a letter to them and they responded to me saying that they will look into my complaint (they were given 8 weeks to reply). The FOS lady also asked me to fill in their forms and then make photocopies copies of the forms plus the The funding corporation loan agreement to AXA. They now have until end of this month (December 2010) to either agree to pay or fight it. I am hoping they wont since I need the money. Has anyone else have to go through this avenue, I would like to hear their experiences.

PNPSUKNET

My point is the same, Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 comes into play. I dont hear Amersall proving their point against me, any company that did prior to 6 years ago is a gesture of goodwill only. If you owed them money and 6 years had passed...would you pay them...

omen666

Am I missing something here?

Why did she not get it heard in her local CC?
Why did she not attend?

These would have saved half the amount of stress already IMHO. I would rather go to court locally in a situation like this as I believe even a CC Judge would find this excessive in terms of the value of loan in comparison to the total payback and would probably 'inadvertently' help you with this issue.