PPI Reclaiming discussion

QOTD

petermb - thanks so much for your help, afterall I would have been chasing Central instead of Paragon...!! :beer: :T

petermb_2

Majella,
who is your mortgage with? and who provided the ppi cover?

asherand

i have tried to reclaim nearly 2000 from yes car credit/direct auto finance only to find that because they were not a menber of the fsa when i first took out my loan that they dont have to comply with any rules this was also backed up by the financial onbudsman!! does any one have the same problem or any other advice

petermb_2

Yes, sure thing.
They are quite correct if you follow the mis-selling route. Fortunately the lenders get lots of things wrong, which leaves them wide open. There are other ways of making a claim other than mis-selling, which they are not able to get out of so easily.

tiggrae

asherand wrote: »

i have tried to reclaim nearly 2000 from yes car credit/direct auto finance only to find that because they were not a menber of the fsa when i first took out my loan that they dont have to comply with any rules this was also backed up by the financial onbudsman!! does any one have the same problem or any other advice

Hi there, this can be a problem in that you can only make complaints to the Financial Ombudsman for policies sold after 2004. Sooooo 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 - this is the relevant extract from the Act (you might want to include it but it is a bit gobbledegook !!!) -

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."

Basically what the above means is that you do not have to establish a duty of care and reverses the burden of proof. Once you have proved that there has been a misrepresentation which induced you (as a reasonable person) 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

[EMAIL="abuse@moneysavingexpert.com?subject=Reporting post http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=6915650"][/EMAIL]

tiggrae

katiekittykat wrote: »

I guess so yeah - I sent the 1st letter saying i wanted an answer within 14 days (they replied within 3) but keep putting me off?

What do I do next?

Are you having any luck with them?

xx

Hi there, the statutory complaints timescale is actually 8 weeks, they have to acknowledge you complaint, then write back within 4 weeks telling you what is happening with a final response at the end of 8 weeks. Hope that helps

katiekittykat

tiggrae wrote: »

Hi there, the statutory complaints timescale is actually 8 weeks, they have to acknowledge you complaint, then write back within 4 weeks telling you what is happening with a final response at the end of 8 weeks. Hope that helps

Thanks very much for that

xxxx

tiggrae

Question for Petermb
Peter, do you know any 'tame' legal people. I've drawn up an N1 claim form for Negligent Misrepresentation but would like it checked over by a 'legal eagle' if possible ????

robinthemadhouse

Hi Can anyone help, Took out loan in 2001 loan repaid in 2006. Just got first letter back refusing ppi claim on the lines that loan is over six years old. I thought the six year rule was from the end of the loan not the start of it am i right.

tiggrae

robinthemadhouse wrote: »

Hi Can anyone help, Took out loan in 2001 loan repaid in 2006. Just got first letter back refusing ppi claim on the lines that loan is over six years old. I thought the six year rule was from the end of the loan not the start of it am i right.

Hi there, write back and tell them they have misinterpreted the Limitation Act of 1980 (below) which basically states if you haven't been in contact regarding a 'debt' for 6 years it is classed as statute barred - however, if you have been paying the premiums for the past 6 years I would say this counts as contact then the time limit begins from the last date of payment !!!

Hope that helps

Limitation Act 1980 and Unsecured Debts.

The 1980 Limitation Act 1980 states how long a creditor can chase someone for an unpaid debt. This articles explains how the limitation act applies to unsecured lending in England and Wales.

The Limitation Act 1980 applies only when no contact has been made between the creditor and debtor within a certain time limit, and applies to residents of England and Wales only.
The time limit depends on the type of debt. For unsecured loans it is 6 years. If the debtor acknowledges the debt in writing or pays an installment within the original limitation period, then the time limit begins again from the date of acknowledgement or the date of payment.
If the creditor does not contact the debtor for 6 years or more, the debtor may be able to claim that the outstanding debt is Statute Barred under the conditions of the Limitations Act. Statute Barred means the creditor cannot use the legal system to enforce payment.