another PPI thread

capeverde

Here's the basics. I went bankrupt in April 2010 and discharged a year to the day. The Ombudsmen meanwhile were working on a PPI claim for me. After my discharge they found in my favour. I'm fully aware that this should be paid to the OR. However a small percentage of me was hoping that RBS would behave true to form (clueless) and it would somehow be sent to myself. I informed the Ombudsmen of my status at the time they started dealing with my case. Subsequently, I found out today that RBS had in fact credited the money (almost 4K) to the credit card account it came from. I asked on what basis they had done this as that card was cancelled in April 2010 and there is no longer a debt on that account as that ended with my bankruptcy. The account also shows settled. They basically looked into it and told me that was their decision and if I didnt like it I could take it further but they would not change theri mind. I informed them that they were treating themselves as a preferential creditor and that the money should be sent to the OR as it was from before my bankruptcy. They disputed this and refused to discuss it any further. I then got onto the Ombudsmen again and they are having a meeting over this next Tuesday and will inform me of their decision. I thought it should be cut and dried. It was basically discussed at their highest level today as to the legality of RBS paying the money to themselves. Another thing muddying the water is the phrasing of RBS's letter. In it they offer the money as a 'goodwill gesture' and make it clear they have not admitted to mis selling of the PPI, the ombudsmen queried that in this case whether the goodwill gesture should therfore be a debt after or before bankruptcy. Can anybody clear this up.

Ineedaname

As the OR now has control of the debt you shouldn't need to worry yourself about it. I'd pass all the details on to the OR, including the Ombudsman information and contacts, and pass the OR's details to the Ombudsman. Then walk away and try not to think about it, there's nothing you can do and you won't see the money anyway so let somebody else worry about the legalities this time.

capeverde

OR was more than useless to be fair. Contacted me twice and then decided to go and work somewhere else. I called the office on my release and was told nobody was looking after my case as it had ended and any money that came to me from that point was mine. I called a second time for clarification and to ask some more questions but got basically told the same thing. As I said in my first post I understand I wont get anything and Im not that bothered as things are going great for me and business is expanding rapidly. What I do want though is to make sure RBS dont ride roughshod over the law.

debtinfo

first things first, the debt does not die when you are discharged just your liability to pay it. If at the date of the bankruptcy the bank also owed you money then they are allowed to set of against the debt. When a right of action is made like a ppi which you subsequently win then the money was always owed to you (regardles of when it is being paid such as now) so if it was always owed thenit was owed at the date of the bankruptcy ergo they may set of against any debt owed to them.

You seem to want to get into the finer points of the law but you miss one out, that is that really at the point of the bankruptcy the claim became an asset and therefore you had no legal right to carry the action on, you should have declared the asset to the trustee and given them details of the Ombudsman that was dealing with the case.

another thing to point out is that with everything in law, you can never say in black and white something is not allowed, for instance a preference, although we generally say they are not allowed that is really just shorthand for saying that preferences that are contrary to the applicable law are not allowed not that all preferences are not allowed

capeverde

debtinfo wrote: »

first things first, the debt does not die when you are discharged just your liability to pay it. If at the date of the bankruptcy the bank also owed you money then they are allowed to set of against the debt. When a right of action is made like a ppi which you subsequently win then the money was always owed to you (regardles of when it is being paid such as now) so if it was always owed thenit was owed at the date of the bankruptcy ergo they may set of against any debt owed to them.

You seem to want to get into the finer points of the law but you miss one out, that is that really at the point of the bankruptcy the claim became an asset and therefore you had no legal right to carry the action on, you should have declared the asset to the trustee and given them details of the Ombudsman that was dealing with the case.

another thing to point out is that with everything in law, you can never say in black and white something is not allowed, for instance a preference, although we generally say they are not allowed that is really just shorthand for saying that preferences that are contrary to the applicable law are not allowed not that all preferences are not allowed

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Initially I contacted the Ombudsmen and set the wheels in motion. I then decided to take RBS to small claims court.The legal process had started and RBS had shown their intent to fight they claim. When I went bankrupt for obvious reasons I dropped the case and gave up on it. Subsequently about 6 months after my bankruptcy, I was contacted by the Ombudsmen. I informed them that I was bankrupt but I would be more than happy to answer their questions. If what you say is correct that RBS can offset then I wont bother trying to inform the OR. Be interested to hear what the Ombudsmen say. They had a meeting over this very issue the other day apparently and it was raised to the highest level today but they couldnt give me a definitive.

debtinfo

you should still inform the OR as it is their case and you have a continuing duty to inform them of any information that you come across in relation to assets in the bankruptcy estate, even if the OR is unlikely to benefit in the end.

The only reason that the bank should not be able to offset is if they had sold the debt prior to the bankruptcy because then they would not hold the debt and th asset at that time and so could not ofset one against the other

capeverde

debtinfo wrote: »

you should still inform the OR as it is their case and you have a continuing duty to inform them of any information that you come across in relation to assets in the bankruptcy estate, even if the OR is unlikely to benefit in the end.

The only reason that the bank should not be able to offset is if they had sold the debt prior to the bankruptcy because then they would not hold the debt and th asset at that time and so could not ofset one against the other

I wouldnt have known this, as I said previously, i contacted the ORs office twice on my release and was informed the person who dealt with my case had left. I had numerous questions to ask but was basically fobbed off and simply told that they had no interest in my affairs and I could carry on as before my bankruptcy. Strange really when you can get better information from a forum than from the OR and the Ombudsmen.

debtinfo

Yes but I was trained at the OR's office . I think they are just under tremendous strain recently. What they probably meant was that they have no interest in new things but as this is a legacy item they should be interested in it