MSE News: FSA to re-open 185,000 rejected debt insurance claims

di3004

Done it, here just copied and pasted it lol, cheers Marshallka, told you I am flipping useless lmao

Statutory rebate (£):Settlement figure (£):

di3004

Blimey the figure is gone lol, but it was as you said, cheers.;)

di3004

it then shows the stat rebate of 30933.18

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

You put in the first box your loan amount £21000, you then put in your regular monthly payment which was £184.23 (just for the loan and not the PPI) and missing out the "Amount of initial repayment", you then put how long the loan was over in the box saying number of regular payments which was 300 and then time of settlement which was 14. You then click calculate and it gives you what your settlement figure would have been which was £21756.60

You whole loan would have cost you in total being 184.23 x 14 = 2579.22 and then add the 21756.60 which is what you SHOULD have paid at settlement without the PPI if you never had PPI at all so that is £24335.82.

All this is working the loan as if you never had any PPI on it but it still cost a lot.

Its very costly isn't it? !
And that is without the ppi.....:mad:
And yours was higher again.....:mad:

marshallka

What i was meaning here Di is you did not pay anything off your loan in making the repayment of £184.23 at all. You made them all then still owed more than you borrowed. This is how rule 78 works. You borrow £21K and then repay them £2579.22 off it but still owe them £21756.00 which is more than you actually borrowed. How can this have been allowed god only knows. Its only when you are a little further into the loan that you actually start to pay anything off it. I repaid to my loan forgetting the PPI here 13800. I only borrowed £17000 and then my settlement would have been £16670 so all I had actually paid off the loan over 3 years was £300. I am going on about it but people do not realise just how stung they actually were when rule 78 was being used. Nothing to do with PPI here. Just another example of how we were all let down by the authorities.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

What i was meaning here Di is you did not pay anything off your loan in making the repayment of £184.23 at all. You made them all then still owed more than you borrowed. This is how rule 78 works. You borrow £21K and then repay them £2579.22 off it but still owe them £21756.00 which is more than you actually borrowed. How can this have been allowed god only knows. Its only when you are a little further into the loan that you actually start to pay anything off it. I repaid to my loan forgetting the PPI here 13800. I only borrowed £17000 and then my settlement would have been £16670 so all I had actually paid off the loan over 3 years was £300. I am going on about it but people do not realise just how stung they actually were when rule 78 was being used. Nothing to do with PPI here. Just another example of how we were all let down by the authorities.

Its beyond isn't it?:eek:
Your right there Marshallka, we do think that is still something paid off when yet its not actually really coming down at all at that stage.

A right rip off and if only these could be tackled without the ppi.......
Its absolutely pathetic!!!

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Its beyond isn't it?:eek:
Your right there Marshallka, we do think that is still something paid off when yet its not actually really coming down at all at that stage.

A right rip off and if only these could be tackled without the ppi.......
Its absolutely pathetic!!!

Its not just that it does not go down its the fact that it actually GOES UP at some point in the loan.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Its not just that it does not go down its the fact that it actually GOES UP at some point in the loan.

Its bad isn't it?:mad:

If this could be tackled, it would be useful to have a sticky on this thread about this subject, as I expect there are tons of thousands that are or have been ripped off this way.
It may help bring the attention of the right ones....if only.....

Found some info here, but this is nothing new to you really.

http://www.moneyfacts.co.uk/Guide/18110/Rule-78-Guide.aspx

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Its bad isn't it?:mad:

If this could be tackled, it would be useful to have a sticky on this thread about this subject, as I expect there are tons of thousands that are or have been ripped off this way.
It may help bring the attention of the right ones....if only.....

Found some info here, but this is nothing new to you really.

http://www.moneyfacts.co.uk/Guide/18110/Rule-78-Guide.aspx

I may give the OFT a go on this one. Its nothing to do with the PPI and I am just on about the loan we actually borrowed without the PPI on it. We were charged another £4K cause of the PPI more than if it was settled using the other way. I feel its totally unfair and I am going to give it a go with them. FOS cannot help cause they did not have jurisdiction until 2007 for consumer credit complaints.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

I may give the OFT a go on this one. Its nothing to do with the PPI and I am just on about the loan we actually borrowed without the PPI on it. We were charged another £4K cause of the PPI more than if it was settled using the other way. I feel its totally unfair and I am going to give it a go with them. FOS cannot help cause they did not have jurisdiction until 2007 for consumer credit complaints.

Great idea Marshallka.
Would you also like to post a separate thread as well on these issues, it may help in case others are in the same situation, and maybe or hopefully these big people will start posting in as well.
Be good if Singlep came back as well.;)