Legal Advice Re PPI and Bank Charges

ni0106

This is a bit complicated, but worth a shot at asking.

Hubby and I have a shed load of debts (about 60k not including the mortgage. We have lots of CCJ's and charging orders on our home, the last few years have been a very worrying time.

Ive just done my first PPI claim and won almost enough from HSBC to pay off the loan still with their solicitors for which we have a charging order on our house and a CCJ. My question is now that it has been prooven that the amounts we were paying on this loan were wrong legally how does the CCJ and the charging order stand ?

We have lots of loans and credit card debts that could well go the same way, and Im also trying to claim back bank charges on the grounds of hardship as we were caught in a debt spiral and for a couple of years just racked up charges on our current account through HSBC bouncing our loan and mortgage payments.

The way Im thinking is that alot of the CCJ's and charging orders will end up being for amounts that were really not correct because of the PPI and charges levied.

In many respects the charges added to our HSBC current account whilst they were charging extra money for PPI on our loan and adding late payment charges/missed payment charges/overdraft charges/bounced DD charges has caused the knock on effect that ended up with us being unable to pay other things. We almost lost our house, it was a miricle that we didnt really, still have a suspended possession order on it although we have worked hard to bring down the arrears on it and are in a better financial position. It does make me wonder whether banks can be challenged legally that they have been the main cause of hardship issues such as ours. We did visit the branch whilst we were in this situation but the bank didnt want to know, just wanted their payments, the only helpful thing they did was not charge us mortgage interest for 3 months.

Anyone have any experience of what happens to CCJ's and other legal stuff once the PPI and charges have been shown to be unfair ?

dunstonh

My question is now that it has been prooven that the amounts we were paying on this loan were wrong legally how does the CCJ and the charging order stand ?

Check your complaint letter response. You will almost certainly see that they are refunding as a goodwill gesture rather than admitting liability. If so, then nothing changes. If they have accepted liability and upheld the complaint it still doesnt really change anything as the small difference it would have made in the monthly cost would not be responsible for your financial position.

ni0106

Taken singularly, no perhaps it didnt have a huge impact on the monthly position, but when you add it together that the loan couldnt be paid so we were charged for that, then charged for being overdrawn, then charged for the things that bounced as a result it starts to look like a very different picture with regards to the monthly financial position.

Im not sure what the PPI payment figure per month would of been on a £10k loan, Im guessing £30+, I think the loan repayments at the time were something like £350 a month. Not to mention that when my husband was out of work the PPI didnt even help as it wasnt valid until he had been unemployed for 6 months, and then I think it was only valid for paying the interest (but the conversation about the claim happened quite a few years back now and I wouldnt swear to that) so that was pretty useless.

The point being as the loan, the mortgage and the overdraft were all with one bank, and all the charges were escalating at an alarming rate, we had no money to do anything and stupidly shopped for groceries on credit cards. The knock on effect of the charges we incurred will be felt by us for many years to come, and alot of those charges would now be looked upon as unfair, even if not legally wrong.

Ive just checked the PPI redress letter and it says that they uphold the complaint, nothing mentioned about good will.

I'll be the first to admit that back in the 2000 - 2007 period we were financially daft, but the charges and wrongly sold/not asked for PPI that we had have significantly worsened our position and made it much harder to recover. Ive never dealt with a solicitor or had any legal advise but I am starting to wonder if its worth looking into, but Im not even sure where I would find help.

ALIBOBSY

May be worth having a read over on the CAG forum, they seem to be a bit more litigous over there and people are already pushing for the miss sold PPI to also mean charges are refunded and removal of defaults.

The FOS guidence is clear, despite what the banks are trying to make people believe they DID NOT say if PPi was missold just refund the premiums plus 8%.
Their guidence states you must be put back into the position that you would have been in if the PPI had never existed.

With added interest, especially on a single front loaded premium that PPI becomes a bigger and bigger chunk of the balance each month. Especially on credit cards all but the earliest over limit charges (possibly) will be incorrectly applied as the REAL balance had PPi not been there would end up below the credit limit.

Some people over there are starting to have success with the banks and through the FOS claiming the charges back because of the miss sold PPI. Therefore it follows that any defaults issued did not reflect the "true" position on the account so were issued incorrectly.

This side of the claims seems to be in the early stages but it makes sense, is logical and entirely fits with the FOS guidence.

How this would apply to things like chaging orders etc that have been before a judge I don't know. It would seem only fair and right that the same principle applies. Noone can say for sure that the PPi payments and interest were the straw that broke the camels back so to speak and led to a borrower getting behind on a debt, but they can't say that it wasn't that extra tha tipped the balance. Certainly the amounts owed would be substantially lower and for many loans/cards zero.

Ali x

magpiecottage

ALIBOBSY wrote: »

May be worth having a read over on the CAG forum, they seem to be a bit more litigous over there and people are already pushing for the miss sold PPI to also mean charges are refunded and removal of defaults.

It doesn't necessarily mean they are correct, though.

The FOS guidence is clear, despite what the banks are trying to make people believe they DID NOT say if PPi was missold just refund the premiums plus 8%.
Their guidence states you must be put back into the position that you would have been in if the PPI had never existed.

It is actually FSA guidance. However, the OP has a lot of other debts which are not the responsibility of the bank.

With added interest, especially on a single front loaded premium that PPI becomes a bigger and bigger chunk of the balance each month. Especially on credit cards all but the earliest over limit charges (possibly) will be incorrectly applied as the REAL balance had PPi not been there would end up below the credit limit.

You don't get front loaded premiums with credit card PPI - it is a percentage of the balance each month.

Some people over there are starting to have success with the banks and through the FOS claiming the charges back because of the miss sold PPI. Therefore it follows that any defaults issued did not reflect the "true" position on the account so were issued incorrectly.

Not on the basis you have argued.

This side of the claims seems to be in the early stages but it makes sense, is logical and entirely fits with the FOS guidence.

As I say, it falls apart with a single premium policy for PPI.

How this would apply to things like chaging orders etc that have been before a judge I don't know.

FOS has no jurisdiction over a matter already dealt with by a court because it is the senior forum.

Noone can say for sure that the PPi payments and interest were the straw that broke the camels back so to speak and led to a borrower getting behind on a debt, but they can't say that it wasn't that extra tha tipped the balance.

No but there are two problems with this. The first is the principle that "he who asserts must prove". This means the evidence must make it more likely than not, and note merely equally likely, that it caused the default. Given the OPs position, I think the lender can probably argue that, in fact, the evidence points pretty strongly to the default occurring anyway.

The second is the concept of remoteness. Defaults on other debts might conceivably have been avoided without the PPI but that was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of taking it out because the bank had no reason to suppose they would go on to run up other debts.

Certainly the amounts owed would be substantially lower and for many loans/cards zero.

Lower - only if the OP had not taken on other borrowing. That MIGHT be able to be shown to be more likely than not. However, how substantially is debatable and, given the OP's circumstances I very much doubt it would be zero.

I realise this sounds harsh but it is not going to help the OP by giving false hope.

Ali x[/quote]