Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

maxdp

pinknico wrote: »

Max, you have me very curious as to why they would want you to lie to win a case (only because I am nosy!) I hope you can post about it sometime.
Goodluck with it at the FOS. XX

Hi Pinknico.x
When you go to FOS you only have to say that you were led to believe that you had to take the PPI out otherwise you could not get the loan.

with Solicitors to win their case they have to show that you had a shotgun to your head and that you HAD tO HAVE the PPI otherwise the judge would chuck it out. Also you have to go to court and the Banks solicitors (who are top notch) pick you apart so you have to be really certain that you could not have the loan without the PPI in our case it was ADVISED that you had to have the PPI to get the loan. If that went to court that was less than 50% CERTAINTY THAT you would win. Do you see what I am saying.

I do not mind pushing my case but I cannot lie.
xx

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Hi Pinknico.x
When you go to FOS you only have to say that you were led to believe that you had to take the PPI out otherwise you could not get the loan.

with Solicitors to win their case they have to show that you had a shotgun to your head and that you HAD tO HAVE the PPI otherwise the judge would chuck it out. Also you have to go to court and the Banks solicitors (who are top notch) pick you apart so you have to be really certain that you could not have the loan without the PPI in our case it was ADVISED that you had to have the PPI to get the loan. If that went to court that was less than 50% CERTAINTY THAT you would win. Do you see what I am saying.

I do not mind pushing my case but I cannot lie.
xx

With our FP loan we applied and did not want the PPI and when the agreement came out to us it had PPI typed in. We did call them and were TOLD we had to have the PPI or no loan. I would have stood in court and said that with mine. We had no choice. We did not tick any boxes to say we had read the terms and conditions etc on the PPI that were on the application and we applied for a loan over 120 months (got proof on the application) and we got our loan over 160 months cause PPI was added. This was a gun at our heads in my view as we had gone through all the application and they said we could afford a certain amount so they did not put our amount up with repayments, they just lengthened the loan to cover the PPI. FIrms like FP then tell you you get it all back after 5 years (a savings plan) and that they do not do loans without it. You do get it back which is fair enough BUT not all the interest (which doubles the loan to pay the PPI) and PPI was/is not compulsory. They lied, plain and simple.

THOMAS123

marshallka wrote: »

With our FP loan we applied and did not want the PPI and when the agreement came out to us it had PPI typed in. We did call them and were TOLD we had to have the PPI or no loan. I would have stood in court and said that with mine. We had no choice. We did not tick any boxes to say we had read the terms and conditions etc on the PPI that were on the application and we applied for a loan over 120 months (got proof on the application) and we got our loan over 160 months cause PPI was added. This was a gun at our heads in my view as we had gone through all the application and they said we could afford a certain amount so they did not put our amount up with repayments, they just lengthened the loan to cover the PPI. FIrms like FP then tell you you get it all back after 5 years (a savings plan) and that they do not do loans without it. You do get it back which is fair enough BUT not all the interest (which doubles the loan to pay the PPI) and PPI was/is not compulsory. They lied, plain and simple.

Most PPI mis-selling cases fall into this category and whether you reclaim it yourself via FOS or go to a solicitor for help, it's generally very straightforward.

The chances of a PPI case like this going to Court are very low as the cost to the Lenders are very high in comparison with just paying out.

However, other PPI cases which are not so clear cut can be much riskier and unless you have an insurance policy in place covering you in the event that you lose, stay well clear of solicitors and just go down the FOS route.

In fact, I would say do that for any cliams that you may have as the Lenders costs could be huge - they use very expensive lawyers and barristers to defend their corner and you don't want to be left with a big bill of say £50,000 if your claim was only for £5,000.

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

With our FP loan we applied and did not want the PPI and when the agreement came out to us it had PPI typed in. We did call them and were TOLD we had to have the PPI or no loan. I would have stood in court and said that with mine. We had no choice. We did not tick any boxes to say we had read the terms and conditions etc on the PPI that were on the application and we applied for a loan over 120 months (got proof on the application) and we got our loan over 160 months cause PPI was added. This was a gun at our heads in my view as we had gone through all the application and they said we could afford a certain amount so they did not put our amount up with repayments, they just lengthened the loan to cover the PPI. FIrms like FP then tell you you get it all back after 5 years (a savings plan) and that they do not do loans without it. You do get it back which is fair enough BUT not all the interest (which doubles the loan to pay the PPI) and PPI was/is not compulsory. They lied, plain and simple.

Quite agree here. I was also told that if the case went to court and we lost even though insurance was in place if it was felt that the case was lost because of us then we would shoulder some of the costs. No Win No Fee my A?se

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

With our FP loan we applied and did not want the PPI and when the agreement came out to us it had PPI typed in. We did call them and were TOLD we had to have the PPI or no loan. I would have stood in court and said that with mine. We had no choice. We did not tick any boxes to say we had read the terms and conditions etc on the PPI that were on the application and we applied for a loan over 120 months (got proof on the application) and we got our loan over 160 months cause PPI was added. This was a gun at our heads in my view as we had gone through all the application and they said we could afford a certain amount so they did not put our amount up with repayments, they just lengthened the loan to cover the PPI. FIrms like FP then tell you you get it all back after 5 years (a savings plan) and that they do not do loans without it. You do get it back which is fair enough BUT not all the interest (which doubles the loan to pay the PPI) and PPI was/is not compulsory. They lied, plain and simple.

Yours was much more black and white that ours Marshallka. Ours was not shotgun to headd but we couldnot gamble that we could not get the loan as we had been told by our bank manager to put a cheque for 2,500 to pay for an advertisement in a large magazine through and he would cover it and if we popped down there we could get it sorted. We thought that would be to increase the overdraft temporarily which was all we wanted really. It was a difficult situation. IIn my mind it was a gun to the head but where judges and solicitors were involved was not 100% sure.:(

pinknico

I see what you are saying Max, will be interested to see what my solicitors have to say as paperwork says optional so can't see how that won't be thrown out of court where as with the FOS the five year policy covering 15 year loan is seen as unfair etc and that can go in your favour regardless.( did take this to FOS originally but the company weren't covered and this was before the insurers were held accountable) Will take it back to the FOS if the solicitors take it no further.

maxdp

pinknico wrote: »

I see what you are saying Max, will be interested to see what my solicitors have to say as paperwork says optional so can't see how that won't be thrown out of court where as with the FOS the five year policy covering 15 year loan is seen as unfair etc and that can go in your favour regardless.( did take this to FOS originally but the company weren't covered and this was before the insurers were held accountable) Will take it back to the FOS if the solicitors take it no further.

Well may well be worth doing Pinknico. FOS have been very good. What stage are you up to with your solicitors.

pinknico

They are sending me a letter outlining their case and a draft of the letter they are going to send the company.

maxdp

pinknico wrote: »

They are sending me a letter outlining their case and a draft of the letter they are going to send the company.

Hi Pinknico.

I am sure you will but read through it carefully cause in my experience when the solicitors have taken it on they change the goal posts and what you can expect back. So please be very careful. Perhaps you could post up what they say, or not up to you. Am sure you are more than capable of seeing through it but just want to point it out.xxxxxxx

pinknico

Thanks Max, will post up the gist of their letter when I get it and you can let me know what you think.x