Santander ppi rejection because claim is time barred

dunstonh

Firstly you have said I may be lying about the conversation , that is why they are taped so people cannot lie that they never took place .

You could be telling lies. That is why the courts work on the basis of evidence.

Now as I understand Santander has to prove we agreed to PPI , I think if we were being unreasonable by asking for our added on PPI payments back and you were right I think the banks would have carried on with there fight (BBA and Nemo Personal Finance Ltd ) and appealed the High Court Payment Protection Insurance Judgement .

There was no High Court PPI judgement. As has been said several times now.

Do you work or work with Santander as you seem to be arguing for there case rather a lot instead of letting a court make the decision

Pointing out your errors and misconceptions does not mean we work for them.

[Deleted User]

Wong21 wrote: »

Do you work or work with Santander as you seem to be arguing for there case rather a lot

I have no affiliation to any Bank, I'm just questioning you taking this to court instead of using the free complaints process. Did you actually use the Ombudsman service?

Wong21 wrote: »

instead of letting a court make the decision , that's what they are for .

Actually, since PPI is not a legal issue, that is NOT what the court is there for!

Wong21 wrote: »

Firstly you have said I may be lying about the conversation , that is why they are taped so people cannot lie that they never took place .

The point is not that you were lying (or that the Bank was), but that you have gone to court with little evidence and little knowledge.

Wong21 wrote: »

Now as this was to start a new contract to take out PPI you would think Santander would of recorded it so to prove we agreed to take out PPI .

There is no legal requirement to record such conversations.

Wong21 wrote: »

If they had done this we would not be able to say it was added on .

They can say it regardless, if their records show this was how the PPI was sold to you.

Wong21 wrote: »

Now as I understand Santander has to prove we agreed to PPI ,

No, you have to prove that you didn't agree to it and explain why you then paid it (for a number of years, presumably) Why did you not complain when the PPI was initially added? It would have appeared on every monthly statement on a separate line.

Wong21 wrote: »

I think the banks would have carried on with there fight (BBA and Nemo Personal Finance Ltd ) and appealed the High Court Payment Protection Insurance Judgement .

The Banks had already spent millions on the court case (which they actually brought to court), they admitted defeat on the issue of allowing complaints from pre-regulation cases.
There has been no court case to determine that all PPI was mis-sold, it very clearly wasn't or every such insurance policy would have to be refunded.

Wong21

I have used the ombudsman / office of fair trading in the past on different matters , the only way I have found justice is through the courts .
If this was not a legal issue why did it end in the High court .
Evidence which I have is the original contact which has the box we do not want PPI . If this is not legally bidding any more we're is the new contract (telephone conversation)
Again they cannot say we agreed to PPI without supporting this and not just hear say .
The evidence is clearly there in the original contract to say we did not want PPI .
If you are right and hear say is legal why have you not phoned up the lotto help line and claimed a euro millions prize and told them you lost your ticket but still want the jackpot and then you no need to write on this web site .
It was not until it came to every body's attention that PPI had been miss sold or added on that people checked old statements of cards they no longer had , like we did and made a claim .

dunstonh

If this was not a legal issue why did it end in the High court .

It didnt end in the high court.

Wong21

Good luck with your Lotto claim !!

[Deleted User]

Wong21 wrote: »

If this was not a legal issue why did it end in the High court .

As before, it didn't.

Wong21 wrote: »

Evidence which I have is the original contact which has the box we do not want PPI.

As before, this is only evidence that you didn't want it originally-not that you weren't later persuaded otherwise.

Wong21 wrote: »

we're is the new contract (telephone conversation)

As before, a recording of the telephone call is not required.

Wong21 wrote: »

they cannot say we agreed to PPI without supporting this and not just hear say .

As before, your complaint is completely "hearsay"

Wong21 wrote: »

The evidence is clearly there in the original contract to say we did not want PPI .

As before, no it's not.

Wong21 wrote: »

If you are right and hear say is legal why have you not phoned up the lotto help line and claimed a euro millions prize and told them you lost your ticket but still want the jackpot and then you no need to write on this web site .

I'm sorry, but that is a very poor analogy with little in common with your situation.

Wong21 wrote: »

It was not until it came to every body's attention that PPI had been miss sold or added on that people checked old statements of cards they no longer had , like we did and made a claim .

As before, PPI was not just added on.

Clearly, this "discussion" is going nowhere and I am becoming suspicious. Doubtless, you will return to the forum in the future to inform us that you won your court case. Forgive me for being very sceptical if you do.

-taff

This court case is what you keep referring to, which, if you read what it was about, will show you it was not about what you think it was about

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/apr/20/fsa-wins-ppi-battle-banks


Your complaint would have been rejected anyway because store cards were not regulated at the time.

Now you've decided to take them to court without any evidence at all that you didn't agree to this PPI being put on your cards, and that you also didn't notice it was there for years or query it.

Are you doing this on behalf of your wife or is she doing it under your instruction?

Best thing you can do is head over to the CAG forum who will no doubt find you a whole lot of legalese that may help you avoid paying court costs.

Wong21

On FSA website it states on May 9 2011 BBA and Nemo Personal Finance Ltd decided not to appeal against the High Courts Payment Protection Insurance Judgement .
The evidence is the signed contract with the box ticked no PPI wanted , there is no other contract .
Hear say doesn't stand up in a court of law , if you say some thing happened you have to prove it , how are you suppose to prove a conversation never happened , that's a new one on me . I have taken legal advice and had it confirmed the only evidence is the signed contract . Santander as they say replacing the signed contract with a new verbal contract over the phone , now a bank would cover themselves legally by taping the conversation if it happened they would not just take a chance business is not conducted like that , if it was we would not need solicitors and courts . By your response I can only think if you are not in the banking industry , that you have never been to court and do not know how evidence works . For you to say PPI was not added or miss sold and a judge is wrong there is a alternative motive to your postings and I agree this is going no were , I wish you we'll trying to claim your lotto prize or the next time you get a parking ticket write in and claim it was not your car (that is why they take a photo as evidence ) .

[Deleted User]

Wong21 wrote: »

Hear say doesn't stand up in a court of law , if you say some thing happened you have to prove it

Which is exactly why your alleged case will flounder. You are apparently the accuser and so the burden of proof is upon you if it is a real case.

dunstonh

On FSA website it states on May 9 2011 BBA and Nemo Personal Finance Ltd decided not to appeal against the High Courts Payment Protection Insurance Judgement .

That is correct. However, whilst it became known as the PPi case, it actually had nothing to do with PPI itself or the sales process. It was whether the FSA has the ability to force firms to review pre-regulation complaints as if they were measured by 2011 standards.

I'm not sure how many times we have to repeat this.

The evidence is the signed contract with the box ticked no PPI wanted , there is no other contract .

There is the contract entered into verbally over the phone. Signatures are not everything. When was the last time you signed for house insurance or car insurance?

I have taken legal advice and had it confirmed the only evidence is the signed contract .

I doubt any solicitor or barrister would say that as they would know it not to be correct. Perhaps you are guilty of only hearing what you want to hear.