Share your stories on PPI Reclaiming claims handlers

pop_gun

Originally posted by magpiecottage

I am saying nothing of the sort.

If what you say is true then those who chose to use the courts instead of FOS would have won - but in fact the opposite is true.

The courts place so high a burden of proof as to make it impossible to bring a claim. Where there is incontrovertible proof the courts ignore the evidence brought before them and decide in favour of the banks.
The OFT v Banks 2009 Supreme Court ruling is a prime example.

No it didn't. FOS instead decided that it would instead do what it thought was "fair and reasonable in the circumstances" - which the last Chief Ombudsman boasted was "unashamedly making new Law" - and applying it retrospectively.

What the banks were\are doing is called fraudulent misrepresentation. Whether you agree or not the FOS effectively enforced the law as those laws were in place prior to it's existence.
Your use of the chief ombudsman quote is a smoke screen and not a very good one I must say.

And as I say, if that were true, the courts would have found in favour of complainants but did not.

already answered

I think I am sufficiently streetwise to spot a conspiracy theorist when I see one.

This is the equivalent of a child in a tantrum stamping their feet and putting their fingers in their ears when they hear something that contradicts what they want to think.

And you still have not explained why you think the principle that he who asserts must prove is wrong

This is an english speaking forum. Please confine your posts to written english.

magpiecottage

pop_gun wrote: »

The courts place so high a burden of proof as to make it impossible to bring a claim. Where there is incontrovertible proof the courts ignore the evidence brought before them and decide in favour of the banks.
The OFT v Banks 2009 Supreme Court ruling is a prime example.

As I say

magpiecottage wrote: »

I
I think I am sufficiently streetwise to spot a conspiracy theorist when I see one.

I am, though, not so strong on spotting a troll. That is moneyineptitude's specialism. When he notices such an oversight on my part he politely tells me not to feed them.

He has not done that yet so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

pop_gun wrote: »

What the banks were\are doing is called fraudulent misrepresentation. Whether you agree or not the FOS effectively enforced the law as those laws were in place prior to it's existence.

It is not a case of whether I agree or not. It is the view of the courts.

They are a higher forum than FOS.

This is the equivalent of a child in a tantrum stamping their feet and putting their fingers in their ears when they hear something that contradicts what they want to think.

Copper?
Kettle?
Black?

This is an english speaking forum. Please confine your posts to written english.

Allow me to provide you with definitions from the Oxford Compact English Dictionary:

He
the person etc. of unspecified sex (if anyone comes he will have to wait)

who
(a person) that (anyone who wishes can come)

asserts
declares, states clearly (assert one's beliefs, assert that it is so)

must
be obliged to

prove
demonstrate the truth of by evidence or agument


Thus, I assert that the sentence "He who asserts must prove." is English. I demonstrate this by the fact every word in that sentence appears in the Oxford Compact English Dictionary.

The also appear in the Oxford English Dictionary and any other English Dictionary that I have ever seen.

You will also find the phrase used in the courts, for example this case in the House of Lords.

If I had not wanted to use English, I would have said semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit - but I did wish to use English, so I said "He who asserts must prove".

Since you seem to be having trouble understanding it, though, I thought I would do a Flesch-Kincaid grading on it. The result was zero - which means a five year old would be able to understand it.

So I cannot see why you are unable to understand it. The only plausible explanations seem to be that you do understand and are a troll who is trying to cause trouble or you really are an idiot.

As I say, moneyineptitude has not identified you as a troll so for the timebeing I will give you the dubious benefit of the doubt.

pop_gun

double post

pop_gun

magpiecottage wrote: »

As I say



I am, though, not so strong on spotting a troll. That is moneyineptitude's specialism. When he notices such an oversight on my part he politely tells me not to feed them.

He has not done that yet so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.



It is not a case of whether I agree or not. It is the view of the courts.

They are a higher forum than FOS.


.

All you've done is label me a conspiracy theorist (please look up the definition of the phrase) and dismissed arguments that have generated a lot of debate outside (and in) this forum.

It's worrying that you need moneyineptitude's guidance before labelling me a troll. Shows an inability to think for yourself.

A real conspiracy theory would be to label you his sock puppet. Or if you prefer to think of it another way. One brain cell. One mouth.

magpiecottage

pop_gun wrote: »

All you've done is label me a conspiracy theorist (please look up the definition of the phrase)

I was being polite. If you are not a conspiracy theorist then you are an idiot.

and dismissed arguments that have generated a lot of debate outside (and in) this forum.

But you have not put forward any arguments. You merely made unwarranted criticism without giving any alternatives. You criticise those who say if FOS do not find in your favour there is nothing you can do then you praise FOS for following the law and criticise the courts for not following it.

It's worrying that you need moneyineptitude's guidance before labelling me a troll. Shows an inability to think for yourself.

Just paying out enough rope for you to hang yourself

One brain cell. One mouth.

Personal abuse against me is proof positive - you ARE a troll.

Rather than adding to the debate you simply seek to abuse, annoy and upset people for your own perverted gratification.

Vivas

We took out a First Plus 10 year loan over the phone for £25000 in November 2002. PPI was added even though we were both in paid work, and it brought the total amount of the loan to £31122.50.
After 5 years we could reclaim £5000 which we did - we made no other claims on the PPI, and continued to pay off the loan for the following 5 years even though technically then of course we were not covered by any PPI even if we had needed it.
The payments increased from £372 per month to just over £400 and we continued to pay this until we finally paid off the loan approx 12 months early last year 2011. This meant of course that we were paying interest on £31122.50 , NOT £25000. The payments went up evey year despite the drastic fall in interest rates over that period.
In January 2011 we tried to reclaim for mis -sold PPI - we were told that we had a cause to claim, but it ended up with us being sent a Solicitors letter stating the following : -
"We have discovered that First Plus BROKERED your loan through Central Capital Ltd who were NOT FSA registered until Jan 2005. The implications of this are that the Financial Ombudsman has NO JURISDICTION to take your claim further as Central Capital are quite within their rights to claim (as they did) that you have NOT taken out a PPI policy with them since 2005"
Our argument was that we took out the loan with FIRST PLUS - not Central Capital - we have never heard of them - all our paperwork (which we still have) is headed First Plus, our bank payments were made to First Plus, our 5 year cash back claim was made to and paid by First Plus. As far as we are concerned FIRST PLUS MIS SOLD the PPI to us no one else! Even counting the £5000 we successfully claimed back, there is still the matter of interest being paid for 9 years on £31122 not £25000 as we believed.
Does anyone have a similar experience, or any advice - I've lost track of how many "agencies" have offered to reclaim our PPI for us only to disappear off the face of the earth once I read them the Solicitor's letter quoted above.
Is there anywhere else we can go, or are we doomed to lose out on this (as we previously lost out on our endowment mortgage as it was purchased through an Indep Financial Advisor before present legislation came into force) We mus be the kings of "bad" timing where financial dealings are concerned.

magpiecottage

If First Plus brokered the loan then that means they sold it. That seems to contradict what you have said (i.e. that you paid them).

You could go to FOS. Make clear that although they say this other firm is responsible you have never heard of it, you have only ever dealt with FirstPlus and they have provided no evidence that it was sold through anybody else.

R-Nukem

2. Let us know the following:

• Why you decided to use a claims handler

It was a cold call and I was told it was a very complicated process and I recieved under half what they said they could recover.

• Were you happy with the service

What service? They told me they would chase up the claim during every pbhone call with them but I found out they weren't when I got a letter from one of the banks saying that they hadn't recieved letters of acceptance after the cmc told me that the cheque was in the post.

• How much were you claiming and how much did you get to keep

It was quite a tidy sum and they take 30% and I later found out that VAT was added eventhough I wasn't told during the initial phone call nor was it mentioned in the Ts & Cs.

• Anything else you want to tell us

I have reported my complaint to the cmc, ombudsman and MoJ and have got nowhere. This has been going on since Feb, Mar and it looks like they've won and they're demanding the rest of the money

Nomar

We used a company called Premium Claims (Taylor Sterling Legal).

I originally did the forms on here about 3 years ago, we applied to Capital One and First Plus but got short shrift.

In those days I seem to recall that it was a lot harder to get your case dealt with as pretty much all the banks and lenders were just telling people to go away.

I got fed up of coming up against a brick wall in the end and I can't remember how Premium Claims came into it but we they actually sent a guy round to our house and he went through all our paperwork and explained the processes etc.

I actually liked the fact that they sent someone to our house and we were able to speak to him and he was able to explain things to us rather than us just getting someone calling cold on the other end of a phone.

Anyway we have won all our cases and got about £15k in total. Paid 20% in fees which was gutting but that's what I signed up for so my fault if you like. No hidden charges though so they are totally above board there.

We still have one claim going through with them against Capital One via the Ombudsman. It was upheld by FOS so now we are just waiting to hear back from them with Capital one's offer (got no idea how much its worth though). It was for Credit Card PPI going back to 1999 and we had the card until last year (its all paid and account closed now).

I noticed that my Nat West Visa has been charging me PPI for the last 10 years or so too so I am going to claim for that as well but I will be doing it the right way this time by following this site and using the template letters. No more fee paying for me folks.

I have no complaints about the company I used as I was clearly lucky in that I got a good reputable company who operate legitimately, are open and honest and not scam artists.

But now that the courts ruling has made it a lot easier to apply for your refunds without getting knocked back we will definitely do it ourselves for the final few claims my wife and I will be making.

Tiwo

Am desperate for advice. Signed up with PPI claims management service last year; and was informed I had nothing to claim. Few months later my wife claimed for her's separately by herself and succeeded on the same mortgage the claims company failed on earlier with me. Probably because she's the principal person on the mortgage. She got paid, and since then, the claims company has been chasing me for breaching the contract, and claiming additional charges for late payment etc. I have tried explaining that since my spouse and I are financial attached as joint owners of the mortgage, my name would naturally appear on her claim. What do I do before my credit history is destroyed and charged to court. Thanks