PPI Reclaiming discussion

m.colak

Skinty wrote: »

Help!!!
Just got my first letter back from WELCOME finance basicaly saying that I signed the forms disclaimer saying i know that ppi is optional! But surly My letter saying that it's the fact they added the "cash price" of ppi to the loan making my £5000 loan a £7500 loan.
Also it said about FOS rule DISP 3.3.1(3)R My case has no grounds of success.
What's my plan of attack?

First of all ask the question how long was the interview for the loan. Was it explained fully with the PPI the fact that you signed a piece of paper doesn't mean that the PPI was explained fully to you or you understood it. Also look at the line that you were cooerced into taking the PPI because else you wouldn't have received the loan.

The whole point is quoting the 1967 misselling act mean's that the company has to defend itself and prove that it didn't do these actions.

tiggrae

m.colak wrote: »

Stick to your guns as most banks and companies rely on people not claiming it back or exhausting them to the point they give up. What i would suggest is you send the second letter stating again your position. The company has to either cancel the PPI policy if you have written to them or a least aknowledge the fact that you wish too. If they refuse and say its a condition of the credit card then you have a clear aknowledgement of mis selling the card to you as this wasn't made clear to you previously. The fact the policy was sold to you previous to 2005 has no clear issue's except that you can't go down the FOS route (to tell you the truth it is a long process either way). You're next option is to start working out how much you should receive back adding the percentage for interest and getting ready to take it through MCOL. This unfortunately is the only way the companies know that you are going to fight them.

hi there, just a point - as it's Lloyds TSB it is quite likely they DID come under the Jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman previous to 2005 - it's only the other type of lenders who either voluteered to come under the FOS during 2004 or made compulsory on 16th January 2005 - IF IN DOUBT RING THE OMBUDSMAN UP - THEY'RE REALLY VERY HELPFUL AND WILL TELL YOU !!!!

m.colak

tiggrae wrote: »

hi there, just a point - as it's Lloyds TSB it is quite likely they DID come under the Jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman previous to 2005 - it's only the other type of lenders who either voluteered to come under the FOS during 2004 or made compulsory on 16th January 2005 - IF IN DOUBT RING THE OMBUDSMAN UP - THEY'RE REALLY VERY HELPFUL AND WILL TELL YOU !!!!

Just a quick question would you favour the court route or via the FOS!!. Giving the length of time it takes for the FOS to action a case.

tiggrae

m.colak wrote: »

First of all ask the question how long was the interview for the loan. Was it explained fully with the PPI the fact that you signed a piece of paper doesn't mean that the PPI was explained fully to you or you understood it. Also look at the line that you were cooerced into taking the PPI because else you wouldn't have received the loan.

The whole point is quoting the 1967 misselling act mean's that the company has to defend itself and prove that it didn't do these actions.

It's actually the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and you need to state you have been Negligently Misrepresented to and as a reasonable person induced to buy the policy and under this legislation the onus is upon them to prove otherwise and their letter to date fails to do so.

m.colak

tiggrae wrote: »

It's actually the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and you need to state you have been Negligently Misrepresented to and as a reasonable person induced to buy the policy and under this legislation the onus is upon them to prove otherwise and their letter to date fails to do so.

Sheer lazyness on my part not quoting the proper title of the act. I assumed that the person had read most of the thread and therefore would have seen about the act already.

tiggrae

m.colak wrote: »

Just a quick question would you favour the court route or via the FOS!!. Giving the length of time it takes for the FOS to action a case.

You have to weigh it up - the FOS costs nothing but takes time, but going to court you have to get the law right (including and very importantly case law) and be aware of the Court Procedures - get a procedure wrong and you could lose your case. Defendants do tend to pay up on commencement of proceedings, but some will try to bully people by telling them the costs of losing - under the small claims court you do not pay costs if you lose, but solicitors (especially the large ones) quite rightly assume people are not familiar with the whole court process.

I think the answer really goes on how determined you are, if you're unfraid of the court process and you know the law - definately the law route - if not the FOS !

tiggrae

m.colak wrote: »

Sheer lazyness on my part not quoting the proper title of the act. I assumed that the person had read most of the thread and therefore would have seen about the act already.

no worries at all - it's just if people are looking for the mis selling act they wouldn't find it - plus I think knowing the law is absolutely vital to the reclaim process - I've written to Martin about this aspect and they're going to amend the thread to include more about the legal side

Skinty_2

there was no interview all the paperwork was posted out after a phone call!

m.colak

tiggrae wrote: »

You have to weigh it up - the FOS costs nothing but takes time, but going to court you have to get the law right (including and very importantly case law) and be aware of the Court Procedures - get a procedure wrong and you could lose your case. Defendants do tend to pay up on commencement of proceedings, but some will try to bully people by telling them the costs of losing - under the small claims court you do not pay costs if you lose, but solicitors (especially the large ones) quite rightly assume people are not familiar with the whole court process.

I think the answer really goes on how determined you are, if you're unfraid of the court process and you know the law - definately the law route - if not the FOS !

I agree although i think you forgot to include people's person circumstances also need to take a role in which line you take. The MCOL proceedure can take upto 3 months where as the FOS can take a lot longer and it the person situation which will deem which route he should shouldn't take. I am in the prime position where have two claims sent at the same time one via MCOL and the other via the FOS. The MCOL is almost settled where as the FOS hasn't even started on the other claim. The case was raised on the 6th of December so that should give a indication.

I would suggest if someone has PPI currently attached to a Loan of Card and wants it corrected then to go the FOS route as it is the only way to ensure that the interest is re calculated and the whole product is correctly dealt with. If the loan is settled then to go the MCOL route for ease.

tiggrae

Skinty wrote: »

there was no interview all the paperwork was posted out after a phone call!

write and ask for a transcript of the telephone call