aqua ppi success (£1541) need advice!!!

ajay5021

Hi All

I have been on a debt management plan for two years now an decided to claim on my ppi with most of my cards. After 8 weeks I have recieved a refund of 1541 from aqua and money was taken of my balance. However as i dont have access to use that card anymore i was wondering is there a way that i could have had a cheque sent to me instead. The reason being of course I want the money as they took it from me throughout the years without me knowing. please advice and is it too late for a cheque? thanks

di3004

Hi and welcome

I am bumping this up for you, as I believe there will have been others in the same situation as yourself.

However, there is no harm in writing to them and making a point that as your no longer to use the account, you have not benefitted from the refund, where you have already been deprived of your money once.

They should though otherwise reduce the amount owing on this account, have they pointed this out to you and let you know the new amount?

See what others suggest as well first.

Well done on your success anyway.:beer:;)

amersall

Well done on your win :j
I believe that they can take this off your DMP especially if the card is with the DMP or if you had arrears on the card.
I am like Di though,i am not 100% on this,but others who know will post and help you with this.

ALIBOBSY

The banks in these cases are trying to use the "rules of offset" which basically are intended that if you have say a loan or credit card with a bank alongside a current accout or savings account, should the former fall into arrears and you don't pay up they can transfer some or all of the credit in the latter accounts against the ARREARS of the former.

There is a very good arguement that the rules of offset are not applicable in these cases at all and that this is purely a refund and as such should be paid directly to the complainant ie you.
If the account is sold on to a debt collector even under the offset rules payments cannot be transferred to a third party. If the account is still with the original creditor they may insist the laws off ofset allow them to pay the money accross.

I would argue that I believe the offset rules don't apply in this case and as DI said point out you are being deprived of the money twice over.
I would also point out that even under the rules of offset the refund would anly be able to be held against current arrears. Given that you are on a DMP and (I assume) are up to date with the current arrangement there are NO arrears currently.
Finally I would point out that as (I assume) you have other debtors and are on a DMP it is unfairly favouring their debt over your other creditors (the courts and the FOS don't like this), therefore the money should be sent direct to you to decide how and who it is divided up to pay.

Definately challenge as I have read loads of cases on here and elsewhere where when challenged the bank backed down and paid up-never seen one yet where they refuse. I reckon the banks are using a flimsy case to hold onto some of the refunds,but when challenged back down. After all if 50% of people just accept thats how it has to be they are onto a winner.

Worse case if they still refuse and at least one debt is a lot lower-so worth claiming anyway.

Ali x

magpiecottage

I am not aware of any such case that has gone to FOS. However, I think a bank could persuade FOS that it IS reasonable to set it off against other debts unless you can prove those debts would not otherwise have existed but for the missale (which would prove difficult).

If the debt has been sold on then it will have been at a discount. The purchaser will give the bank considerably less than you owe in the hope that you will pay and it will profit from the difference.

In such circumstances, I think the bank could make FOS sympathetic to an argument that it should be used against that shortfall.

Hughesy84

How do I go about making a claim to Aqua?

ALIBOBSY

magpiecottage wrote: »

I am not aware of any such case that has gone to FOS. However, I think a bank could persuade FOS that it IS reasonable to set it off against other debts unless you can prove those debts would not otherwise have existed but for the missale (which would prove difficult).

If the debt has been sold on then it will have been at a discount. The purchaser will give the bank considerably less than you owe in the hope that you will pay and it will profit from the difference.

In such circumstances, I think the bank could make FOS sympathetic to an argument that it should be used against that shortfall.

The thing is under that arguement Maggie the bank will have also written off any "loss" against tax as well. If sold in full to a DCA they have given up all rights to the third party. They would get into a very grey area of having to sort tax issues out, and buy back the debt-they couldn't expect to hold money against the "loss" and still leave the DCA trying to collect the same money. If the DCA have been paid then the debt has been settled and the bank have no further come back-you can't be expected to pay the same figure twice.

But at the end of the day the banks can only use the laws of offset to hold the money against any debt, even if you accept the premise they can use the laws of offset they are absolutely clear. The money can only be held against accounts the bank CURRENTLY own.

I have read many cases over on CAG where these offsets are challenged and TBH most times the banks seem to think they are on dodgy ground, because most just roll over and pay up. I believe someone even won in court when a bank tried to hold the amount against a debt still owned by them-but can't remember if they actually settled just before the case or if a judgement was given-would have been small claims so no precedent anyway.

I certainly would complain about any attempt to offset and push for a full refund, you lose nothing by pushing for this.

Ali x

NB re-reading the OP I think the card is still held by the original creditor so the argument about the DCA is a moot point sorry!
Think the line of attack to argue would be the financial hardship and not favouring one debtor over another-ie the money should come tom you to be split pro rata amongst the debts you owe.

daveyu

I have received a ppi payment from Aqua however the cheque has gone unpaid with my bank lloyds 
I have received a copy of the cheque and it appears unsigned 
 was wondering if this is common

[Deleted User]

Not sure it matters either way...

brettcta

If they’re manually signing cheques then it’s perfectly possible. Simply contact them, tell them what’s happened and they’ll re-issue it.