Really confusing situation: any maths brains out there?

[Deleted User]

Does this all make sense?

I guess there are two issues here.

One is that I have been mis-sold PPI.

The second is that - assuming I have been missold PPI - I've made 7 payments of £242 which ordinarily - on a 10k loan @7.9% - would have reduced the balance down to just under 9k.

Instead - because I had PPI - my balance was 11k.

In asking for PPI to be removed on my loan it's actually cost me money, rather than saving it, because they've returned the balance back to zero and haven't taken into account the payments I've made. Nor have they taken into account any PPI refund for the 7 payments made (they just refunded the bit I've yet to pay).

This is all really confusing and I'm not explaining myself very clearly!

CLAPTON

I do understand the problem .. its the solution that a bit messy

Firstly assuming the PPI was valid for the 7 months (i.e. not mis-sold) then
basically the 'refund' of the PPI was less than it 'should' have been

The PPI element of 1,789 should have been only reduced to about 1,600 after the interest was added and the prorata-ed payments deducted. So you should have been refunded about 1,600 .

Secondly of course, if you take the view that the PPI was totaly mis-sold after 7 payments your 10,000 debt should have been reduced to 8,900 ish as you say.

[Deleted User]

Yep, that's it! I agree the solution is messy - as was my explanation.

Anyway, I'm now going down the second route - that the PPI was mis-sold, and so about to tackle Barclays about this, so will report back my experience!

[Deleted User]

I've spoken to two solicitors - one has said I have a claim, the other thinks I may, but is not sure.

They have said that all the banks are obliged to do is put you back in a situation as if you had never taken out PPI, but that the situation is back then. So, provided Barclays refunded my PPI at the time to place me in a situation where I hadn't had PPI, the fact that now I am £2.3k down is irrelevant.

Does that make sense?

I'm starting to worry now that maybe I don't have any claim at all, as Barclays have refunded PPI to me already.

It's not the PPI refund I want to argue, it's that the PPI was mis-sold and so I should have started from a position of £10k.

One solicitor said that all the FOS will do is get the lender to refund the PPI, but not to restore the loan to the situation it would have been in pre-PPI.

Not sure who is right!

CLAPTON

can you clarify.

did barclays actually pay you any money as opposed to an accounting entry?

[Deleted User]

I honestly can't remember, which is why I've asked Barclays for a copy of my statements. Their letter says that they paid to my current account, but I can't recall receiving £1,096 (this is a lot of money to me, so I'm sure I would have noticed!) and I would rather have had the loan reduced accordingly rather than money paid to me (as I can't make overpayments towards the loan).

Barclays are sending me a copy of my statements so that I can check.

[Deleted User]

I've just spent twenty minutes on the phone to someone at Barclays who has said she is also as confused by the letter as I am. I'm still confused as to whether I'm entitled to claim anything or not.

According to Barclays' records, I DID receive a refund of £1,196.06 to my current account on 2nd May 2009, but I am unsure what this is for. They have advised it is a refund of PPI, but I can't see how this can be:

If total PPI on a 5 year loan is £1,786.69, and I have made 7 payments of £242 (plus a 3 month repayment 'holiday') why would I receive a refund of £1,196.06?

The woman at Barclays was confused by this, as am I. What is that refund for? Is it a refund of payments I have made towards the PPI so far? Or a refund - pro-rata - for the PPI I haven't used to date?

If the former, then surely out of £1694 worth of payments, £1,196 can't have been towards PPI? What about the capital and interest? Otherwise 71% of my repayments go towards PPI.

If the latter, then surely it can't be correct either, as I haven't paid this amount yet? Surely it should just be an 'accounting' figure, otherwise it's equivalent to me being given more money from the bank than I asked for?

I'm so thoroughly confused and no-one can seem to understand what on earth has gone on. Even Barclays are confused.

The customer service lady seemed to suggest that my new loan should have been for less than £10k, but I'm completely lost. I think I might give up. One minute it looks like I'm £2.8k down, the next it looks like everything's correct. I can't make head nor tail of it.

[Deleted User]

If I take out a loan for £X over 5 years and the PPI is - let's say - £1.5k, and I asked after 1 year for the PPI to be removed, what would happen?

I don't get why the customer would be 'refunded' £1.5k pro-rata (depending on how much they've used), when in fact they haven't paid towards this yet (other than interest).

For example:

£10k loan + £1.5k PPI = £11,500

After 1 year's worth of payments (out of 5), I've 'used' 1/5th of the PPI (notionally).

If I ask Bank X to remove the PPI, surely they should reduce the balance by 4/5ths of the PPI (e.g. £1,200)?

Why would they pay this to the customer? The customer hasn't 'paid' this towards the loan yet, so it's not theirs. Otherwise it's equivalent to the customer taking out a £11,200 loan, rather than the £10k loan they started with.

I'm confused.com.

[Deleted User]

Perhaps it's easier to wipe the slate clean for all the above posts and summarise everything as follows:

I had a loan for £10k with PPI and I asked for the PPI to be removed
The bank removed the PPI and refunded part of the PPI to my bank account
They then took out a new loan (without PPI) to replace the old one
The new loan was for the same starting amount as the old one

I've paid in £1,694 but I've only got back £1,196 - and I don't understand why I got this back and why it wasn't applied to the loan (thus saving me more in interest).

I now want to challenge the PPI as being mis-sold in the first place, arguing that I should be in the position now as if I'd never had PPI, which by my reckoning means I should be £2.8k better off

di3004

Bumping up.

Melorablack and/or Marshallka, if you see this, please do you think you could take a look at the calculations? Thank you.;)