first plus PPI & rate hike,unfair relationship

tony-firstplus

amersall wrote: »

To tony-firstplus.

Send this

We/I were mis sold the PPI on the above loan account number We/I would like proof to the contrary of my/our reasons for mis sell of the above PPI .


1)We/I were not told that the ppi was in effect another loan that was added to the original loan and was repayable over the term with interest

2) We/I were told that the PPI was a 5 year policy, but not told
the PPI would still be on the loan to term end with interest and We/I would no longer have cover.

3) We/I were told that if we did not make a claim,or go into arrears on the PPI after 5 years we/I would receive the cash back of PPI but were not told this would not include the interest made on these payments that we paid over
the 5 years or that the PPI would still be on the loan to term end with interest

Unless you can prove without doubt, this policy was suitable for me/us then in line with the FOS recommendations it is requested that the overall situation be restored as if PPI had never been included. This will entail.

A refund of the monthly payments that have actually been paid towards the overall loan in excess of those that would have been needed, if the original loan had been sold without the PPI policy.

In addition, interest at the rate of 8% simple per annum to any excess payments made from the time each payment was made to the point that they are paid back to us. We/I believe we were not given enough information on this
PPI to make an informed decision.

Had we/I known the full cost of this PPI we would not have taken it.

Adapt if you need to, see what they come back with, FPC site is not taking any new members at the moment, lots of reasons for this, it is still going as they are fighting the interest rate issue, if they do in future I will let you know.

You do not need a solicitor to help you with the interest rate issue

Is the 8% set in some standard rule? As these people are paying 12.5% on this loan.

amersall

tony-firstplus wrote: »

Is the 8% set in some standard rule? As these people are paying 12.5% on this loan.

The 8% you receive for mis sell is on the assumption that had you not had PPI, you would have earned a reasonable rate of return on those payments.

The PPI redress includes the rate of interest that applied to the PPI payment from loan start date to date of redress.

If mis sell is won, the whole PPI amount is taken off the loan balance, this reduces the loan payment by the monthly PPI amount going forward, all PPI payments made to date are returned, if this is won, the redress will be taken to reduce the arrears and the remaining will be returned to the customer with the 8% amount.

Just having the PPI removed from the balance will thousands more interest over the remaining term.

-taff

tony-firstplus wrote: »

Is the 8% set in some standard rule? As these people are paying 12.5% on this loan.

They are paying 12.5% interest on the capital borrowed. You get nothing for that.

They will get the amount they borrowed for the PPI, plus the interest added to that at the start of the loan, plus 8%.

halifax71

Have a look at this thread as well.


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4832311=


Have you been able to access the complaints site? Not sure if new members are being accepted. Let me know if not and i'll have a word with Admin to see if we can let you in. We did a URT claim recently - unsuccessful, but maybe you can learn from our case.


The OFT reprimand is the biggie. http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consumer-credit/first-plus.pdf


They were formally reprimanded but the reasons are withheld due to commercial sensitivity. I've been battling for 3 years to get that overturned.

tony-firstplus

Well we put in a claim to firstplus.
Loan 1 paid PPI of 7500
That was canceled and
Loan 2 paid a PPI of 9700
Then my at was ill and the second PPI paid out
21k

First plus are claiming the PPI compensation against PPI sickness paid out in ppi 2

Also they have reduced the pay out by 20% income tax even though my mate only earns 3k taxable.

They have not refunded any late payment charges or letters

Combined offer of £3500

I think this might be heading to the ombudsman.

tony-firstplus

Another point, when PPI 1 was canceled, FP claim they refunded 35% towards loan 2. However thier maximum refund on a PPI is 25%

Even using their figure ppi1-refund * 8 years compound interest at 8% should equal £9006

PPI 2 could have been purchased cheaper on the open market. Say £3000

So ppi-2 £9700 minus open market price (£3000) should apply= £6700
Then £6700 x years x 8% compound.
+ a refund of all late payment letters and debt collection charges.

The fact a claim was made on PPI 2 is irrelevant. It was not sold competitively . It did not provide the correct cover that the client needed. It did not cover the whole term of the loan , only five years. It was poor value too.

-taff

There are several problems with your opinion.

They do not have to tell you its cheaper, so your assertion it's cheaper on the opne market is irrelevant.
The 8% interest is simple, not compound
Late payents and collection charges will not be refunded.
They are allowed to remove the amount paid out in a claim agaisnt the amount of redress.
They do remove income tax, your mate can speak to HMRC about a refund.

There's nothing stopping you taking it to the ombudsman, but they won't refund you any monies you have already received in claims, nor give you compound interest or late payment fees.

tony-firstplus

Thanks Taff.
I saw news stories a few months ago that showed late payment fees were being refunded as the debt was not being owed.

Also, Firms were reducing claims on the grounds that the client would have bought PPI else where just at a cheaper market rate. I am just turning that argument back against them. I give it a 60/49 chance.

In this case FIrst plus were giving the financial advice and "looking after all your needs" they recommended a product that did not suit the client. It did not go full term of the loan, they lied on the paperwork stating the loan was only for 5 years, not 25 years.

In a previous case used as case law, first plus claimed and won that each loan and PPI were separate. Yet here they have grabbed PPI1 to pay back a PPI 2 health claim.

PPI1 claim should be paid in full , it is not theirs to take.
The arguments over PPI2 are totally Independent to PPI1

I hope to push push the door a little further open than before!


Quite few years back I got into debt because every time the mortgage rate rose they wrote to the wrong address. So I put the exact amount into a bank account and the mortgage bounced because it was a little higher. They then represented it and caused an avalanche of bounced payments. This happened a few times.
I got a judgement that they had to pay all my bounced payments and all my bank charges because the mortgage company had failed to inform me of the increase.

dunstonh

I saw news stories a few months ago that showed late payment fees were being refunded as the debt was not being owed.

Not late payment fees as that is not caused by PPI (hard to see how PPI could cause a late payment). Over limit charges are the main ones that have to be considered.

Also, Firms were reducing claims on the grounds that the client would have bought PPI else where just at a cheaper market rate. I am just turning that argument back against them. I give it a 60/49 chance.

That is not correct either. Where there was no evidence of any wrongdoing but the premium was paid by single premium, then the lender should refund any difference that may exist had the premium being paid on a monthly basis instead.

In this case FIrst plus were giving the financial advice

First plus have never been authorised to give financial advice. They did not hold the regulatory permissions.

In a previous case used as case law, first plus claimed and won that each loan and PPI were separate. Yet here they have grabbed PPI1 to pay back a PPI 2 health claim.

They are allowed to offset the amount paid out on a claim against the redress payable. However, that can only apply where there is continuous chain of debt. Not where there is a different product or break between products.

tony-firstplus

First plus may not have been authorised to give financial advice. But they did do it.
"A dedicated customer account manager looks after all your needs"
"Don't wait a moment longer"
"Your in safe hands all the way"
They chose the protection product....