LloydsTsb PPi Grabbing

sava05

:money:Your welcome

magpiecottage

This thread seems to have become an unedifying squabble.

Getting back to the original point.

MartinWillmott should, as far as possible, be put back into the position he would have been in if the PPI had never been sold.

If it was a monthly premium that would mean a cash payment.

If it was a single premium then he borrowed more than he would otherwise have borrowed. So that part of the loan should be repaid.

Whether any additional interest payments should be paid to him or used to further reduce the loan is a moot point.

If there were arrears on the account, or debt had been written off then the bank would be able to set any redress off against that. This is a principle that was established in court in the light of the Insolvency Act.

I am afraid I cannot recall the name of the actual test case but I remember it from some work I did on interactive legal manuals in 1997.

Martin_Willmott

So the end result, or the result so far is that there is what the law says, but there is some room for manoeuvre depending on discussions with the bank and the ombudsman, these things I already knew, the real achievement and by the way the most entertaining part is that the arrogant rude nasty pri*ks on this forum have been given a well deserved lesson in manners! So what I thought was a complete waste of time has become a success on a completely different front!


Forum rules:

Sadly new posters seem to be treated harshly more often than they used to. Often it's because they ask questions that have already been asked, or post in the "wrong place".
There's also sometimes a "this is our board" attitude which seems to not want new posters coming in and ruining a pre-established clique.
To be utterly clear - both of these go against the philosophy of this site.
MoneySaving should be fun. Everyone using these boards is here for the same reason, to save money. The site's motto is "Please be nice to other MoneySavers". If you see someone being rude to newbies, please report them.

For this reason, newer forum users have a "newbie" image under their username when they post. We hope it helps other, more regular forum users be more tolerant of new users who may ask questions that seem obvious to them.

GhIFA

Putting all the frivolity to one side, and returning to the original topic, Martin, are there any arrears on your loan? This is one of the more common reasons why the lender would offset against the loan rather than paying the redress to the borrower.

Martin_Willmott

Yes £300 but I did offer to pay this, they closed my account and moved it to collections to co-incide with the PPi repayment, I involved the ombudsman, so they had to reinstate the account, now under LloydsTsb own rules they have to make the PPi payment to a lloyds account unless it has been transferred to collections, this came from their CEOs office, in theory now as the account is active they should make payment to that account which will automatically clear the arrears. The other point is, they may choose to withhold the money pending the ombudsman's decision which could take up to a year, but then it should accrue interest at 8%.

dunstonh

I've just realised this comment is aimed at me Mr Dunstonh.

It is not. I have Pm'd you.

magpiecottage

[text removed by MSE Forum Team]

The bottom line is, though, that if you have arrears of £300, then the first £300 can go to clear that for the reasons I gave in my earlier post.

You can try arguing the toss at FOS. However, if FOS decides that the offer you have been made was sufficient to meet any loss you might have suffered, it can dismiss your complaint without considering its merits. An Ombudsman can also decide a case on the basis of what is fair and reasonable and the bank might choose to argue that since the offer was on the table now and was adequate, interest should not be awarded.

So pursuing the case to the bitter end is not without some risk.

jedsonack2

yes, they can do that. i don't have one but people who have the account be aware of these things.

Brains64

[text removed by MSE Forum Team]
Okay, I tell you what JuicyJesus, I'm willing to believe that what you are saying here is the case , however, in fairness to both Martin Lewis and to yourself as well as dunstonh, I will be more than happy to say that you are right if you can show me one occasion....just one, including advice touching on the inqury/point of the OS (just to keep on topic) where Martin Lewis has given advice to the public that was legally or factually incorrect, can you??, whether it's what people (thick or otherwise) want to hear or not isn't the issue, the issue is whether or not Martin Lewis is credible, show me where he has shown that he is less credible than dunstonhand I'll concede you the point, straight up, no bull, I really will be the first to you say you were right, over to you:).

magpiecottage

Brains64 wrote: »

in fairness to both Martin Lewis and to yourself as well as dunstonh, I will be more than happy to say that you are right if you can show me one occasion....just one, including advice touching on the inqury/point of the OS (just to keep on topic) where Martin Lewis has given advice to the public that was legally or factually incorrect, can you??

Probably the bank charges case - he said they were unlawful and the Court said they were not.