PPI Claims after bankruptcy

fermi

Moved to PPI thread.

Please read the 1st few posts for info.

Rich822

i have been discharged for a year now got a phone call of a company saying they can claim back my ppi for me and they would charge 35% . they have started claiming back for 11 cards and loans and a morgage
i have now started to get cheques through the post in my name , after reading on here if i spend the money could my creditors come asking for that money in the future thanks

debtinfo

no, much worse, the Official Receiver and the court can come after you for the money, you need to infome the OR that you have started making claims straight away

alastairq

Question.................with regards to BR....it appears to me from information on here that in fact, a discharged BR has no 'right' to make any claims under PPI...that right belonging to the OR.

Therefore, what sanctions could be sought, by parties other than the OR or Court..should an individual actually seek to claim using a claims company [who refer anyway]...?

Should any Company who seek to act on behalf of an individual, have a duty to confirm whether that individual actually has the 'right' to such a claim? [By conducting a credit check, for example? Or, examining records openly available to the public?]

Or.....having succumbed to the incessant phone calls proclaiming the services available, a discharged BR, having agreed to the making of a claim, but having the compensation recovered by the OR, would the individual concerned be liable for any charges the Claims Referral company may chose to make?

[I assume that the OR would seek to recover the entire amount due.....and not agree to any charges being claimed by a recovery or referral company?]

debtinfo

well, i am no legal expert but i would assume that if you sign a contract asking a firm to act on your behalf then you have authourised them to do work on your behalf regardles of whether there is a chance of winning or not so as far as the contract is concerned you would owe the referal fee as they have done the work. I imagine that you may have a case against the claim firm that they have "sold" you their services under false pretenses and im sure that must be against the law, maybe in the small print they might have something saying that it is your choice and that you have full knowledge of the situation when engaging their services or something like that. I believe it would stand that you owe them the money unless you can challange them in court or via the OFT that they have done something wrong

debtinfo

alastairq wrote: »

Should any Company who seek to act on behalf of an individual, have a duty to confirm whether that individual actually has the 'right' to such a claim? [By conducting a credit check, for example? Or, examining records openly available to the public?]

on this part, if it is a solicitor acting for you, the law is never really set in stone, so as long as they have given you the best advice as to where you stand (and im not saying the claims companys do) then really if you want to take the case forward then they can take your money regardless of how hopeless the outcome looks, after all 1 in (a very large number) of cases actually go against the grain and change the case law

alastairq

thanks..the point I was trying to discover [owing of fees] would affect anybody on this forum who is a discharged BR..and has authorised [one of those telephone sales companies] to proceed with a claim for PPI.


Since, as has been pointed out , the OR is the only person entitled to the proceeds of that claim...it would seem correct that the OR would in fact want all monies paid under a PPI claim....regardless of any fees involved.

If this is the case, then those lurking on this board need to be fully aware of the risks involved if they do 'authorise' a claim to proceed...without actually having the 'authority' to do so.[which only the OR has?}

debtinfo

alastairq wrote: »

thanks..the point I was trying to discover [owing of fees] would affect anybody on this forum who is a discharged BR..and has authorised [one of those telephone sales companies] to proceed with a claim for PPI.


Since, as has been pointed out , the OR is the only person entitled to the proceeds of that claim...it would seem correct that the OR would in fact want all monies paid under a PPI claim....regardless of any fees involved.

If this is the case, then those lurking on this board need to be fully aware of the risks involved if they do 'authorise' a claim to proceed...without actually having the 'authority' to do so.[which only the OR has?}

Yes that is quite correct, all the PPI money will be due to the OR, all the payment to the claims company will be due from the bankrupt

alastairq

debtinfo wrote: »

Yes that is quite correct, all the PPI money will be due to the OR, all the payment to the claims company will be due from the bankrupt

I take it there would be no chance of placing fees into the BR estate, due to the claim being for pre-BR mis-sold agreements? Even though the claim would be initiated post-BR?



I think what DI states should be plastered all across the front of the BR board....as being probably the most relevant information concerning PPI and BRs...?



[and no, I haven't made any sort of claim....I suspect I was one of those rare beasties who refused insurance point-blank?]

debt_doctor

Hmmm.....
Yes I certainly agree that the OR has 100% claim on the monies gained.I suppose there are two scenario's to the fees;

1) ALL of the PPI compensation is given to the ex bankrupt and THEN a bill for (35% in this case) is issued to the ex bankrupt. - In this case I would issue a formal complaint to the company (and the Minstry of Justice) for offering a service that was of no use (rather like the original PPI in most cases!) The OR would take the 100% given to the ex BR.

or

2) the ex bankrupt is paid the claim net after the company had deducted the 35% from the proceeds. - In this case the OR, as I would see it, would have a claim against the management company as they have held part of the claim.

Either way, it is not a good place for the ex BR to be and should be AVOIDED AT ALL COST.

DD