PPI Reclaiming discussion

westie666

Thanks for the post tiggrae, but as I think I mentioned the loan term changed from 60 months to 59 months. Do you think that this is 'taking' the PPI off?

Rgds
W666

tiggrae

westie666 wrote: »

Thanks for the post tiggrae, but as I think I mentioned the loan term changed from 60 months to 59 months. Do you think that this is 'taking' the PPI off?

Rgds
W666

doesn't sound enough !!!

anoushenka

gt568 wrote: »

How long ago was the loan? Send off a Subject Access Request (SAR) only £10 and they have to provide all the info they hold on you. Templates can be found on this website.

The loan was from Sept. 2004 to October 2007. Will send off the SAR, thanks for the advice!

gt568

westie666 wrote: »

Thanks for the post tiggrae, but as I think I mentioned the loan term changed from 60 months to 59 months. Do you think that this is 'taking' the PPI off?

Rgds
W666

Depends how much the loan and PPI were for and the term of the loan. Have you got the figures?

westie666

original 10500 over 60 months - 241.62 pm
after cancel 10500 over 59 - 241.62 pm

W666

gt568

westie666 wrote: »

original 10500 over 60 months - 241.62 pm
after cancel 10500 over 59 - 241.62 pm

W666

Sorry I should have been clearer. How much was the ppi element of the loan, how much was the total loan. Was the ppi added on top of the amount you wanted to borrow, a single premium policy?

westie666

Dont know to be honest.
As far as I know, it was added on top of the loan amount. as you say a single premium policy. My current loan agreement does not show te inforamtion (obviouly becuase I canceled it)

W666

hugobiano

Hi Folks, ive written to G.E Capital in the hope that i could reclaim the PPI my wifes paid on the basis that they had been fined by the financial ombusman. I received a FOB OFF letter last week saying that she would be unable to claim as her policy was taken out in May 2001 and that she had been sent ammended details of her policy in 2003 and that the fine related to policies from 2005 onwards.

Wondering what to do next,any suggestions

Has anybody else had the same reply from GE CAPITAL? and if so how did they respond. I'm desperate to get my teeth into them.:mad:

tiggrae

hugobiano wrote: »

Hi Folks, ive written to G.E Capital in the hope that i could reclaim the PPI my wifes paid on the basis that they had been fined by the financial ombusman. I received a FOB OFF letter last week saying that she would be unable to claim as her policy was taken out in May 2001 and that she had been sent ammended details of her policy in 2003 and that the fine related to policies from 2005 onwards.

Wondering what to do next,any suggestions

Has anybody else had the same reply from GE CAPITAL? and if so how did they respond. I'm desperate to get my teeth into them.:mad:

Hi there, if you have a case for mis selling it should be regardless of whether the seller has already been fined, you need to base your case on the facts of the mis selling (ie was you wife unemployed, housewife etc) when she took out the loan. GE are correct in what they say and that the fine was on policies sold after 2005 - you'll also be unable to take your complaint to the Ombudsman as they won't look at anything prior to 2004.

What you need to do is write back stating the case for mis selling saying you'll start proceedings within the County Court - state you believe the policy was Negligently Mis representated and under S2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 they are under an obligation to prove they did not Negligently Misrepresent to your wife - this is the relevant extract from the Act (you might want to include it but as I'm not anyone within GE can read you may not !!!) -

Section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 provides:
"Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by another party thereto and as a result thereof he has suffered loss, then, if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation been made fraudulently, that person shall be so liable notwithstanding that the misrepresentation was not made fraudulently unless he proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made that the facts represented were true."

This provision does not require the representee (ie you) to establish a duty of care and reverses the burden of proof. Once a party (again you) has proved that there has been a misrepresentation which induced him (your wife in this case) to enter into the contract, the person making the misrepresentation will be liable in damages unless he proves he had reasonable grounds to believe and did believe that the facts represented were true (yeah right !!!).

Good luck

QOTD

I've just been reviewing both this thread and the successes/failures threads to see if anyone has received a response from Central Capital/Central Trust - I haven't found anything yet!

I sent my letter off to Central Capital and am waiting on a response, so I was wondering if anyone else has heard anything since the forum seems to be quite quiet on mentions of Central.....