PPI Reclaiming discussion

tiggrae

Kaia wrote: »

Is this the same as the data protection thing where you ask for details and send off £10?

yes it's called a Subject Access Data Request under the Data Protection Act 1998

LISAW_2

tiggrae wrote: »

they have to stick to their own regulations regarding their powers - ring them up and ask whether LLoyds TSB came under their jurisdiction at the time of the sale - they're really VERY helpful and will be able to tell you straight away then at least you'll know for sure

Thanks. I will try that on monday. I did speak to them today, and they were helpful. but unfortunatley, no-one will tell me anymore until it has been allocated to someone who will make a decision on if they are going to take it on. They knew it was 98 and 99 when i made the original call, and as they have asked for my records, im guessing that LTSB was under their jurisdiction as surely they wouldnt have bothered going this far. As far as i can tell, because of the 6 year since sale or 3 year since aware rule, they have to decide if they are prepared to do battle. I guess its down to the interpretation of whoever makes the decision. Its just maddening that lloyds have told me they will settle if the FOS decide to fight them, yet they wont pay me as im not imprtant enough. Was important enough to rip me off for about 10 k 9 years ago. Wonder if they'll think im a bit more important when i deliver a court date if i have to.

Sorry to rant, but this is really frustrating me now, they are blantently admitting liability over the phone saying they will settle if the fos forces them to, but poking their tongue out at me!!

May just pay someone to do it for me. Thanks for your advice and shoulder!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

daynurse

m.colak wrote: »

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/fsc/Consultative/conductofbusiness.pdf

art 7.36

cheers going to have a look

tiggrae

Mollsmum wrote: »

Hi guys
Hope you can help, OH took out a car loan in 2005 and the garage added on PPI which we didn't notice at the time.
Anyway OH works abroad so the policy was invalid from the offset, we have sent 2 letters to LTSB and both times they have said that they have contacted the garage and the garage would be in contact with us.
Needless to say we have heard nothing and now i'm not sure what to do next.
Thanks.

you need to write to the garage direct - it's always whoever sold the policy - this is what the FSA have to say about loans sold by garages - use this

'our work identified particularly poor standards among firms such are car dealers and retailers, for whom the sale of PPI is a minor activity relative to their own business' - look at my previous posts on failure of best practice - tell them you're going to ask them to prove they were fully compliant with best practice

tiggrae

LISAW wrote: »

Thanks. I will try that on monday. I did speak to them today, and they were helpful. but unfortunatley, no-one will tell me anymore until it has been allocated to someone who will make a decision on if they are going to take it on. They knew it was 98 and 99 when i made the original call, and as they have asked for my records, im guessing that LTSB was under their jurisdiction as surely they wouldnt have bothered going this far. As far as i can tell, because of the 6 year since sale or 3 year since aware rule, they have to decide if they are prepared to do battle. I guess its down to the interpretation of whoever makes the decision. Its just maddening that lloyds have told me they will settle if the FOS decide to fight them, yet they wont pay me as im not imprtant enough. Was important enough to rip me off for about 10 k 9 years ago. Wonder if they'll think im a bit more important when i deliver a court date if i have to.

Sorry to rant, but this is really frustrating me now, they are blantently admitting liability over the phone saying they will settle if the fos forces them to, but poking their tongue out at me!!

May just pay someone to do it for me. Thanks for your advice and shoulder!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

when they're talking about the 6 year rule are you sure they don't mean the Statute of Limitations Act 1980 - because if so this is what that act has to say about chasing a debt

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.
When a Creditor can pursue an unsecured debt.

A debtor may think (or hope) a creditor has written-off a debt if they have not heard from them for a long time. This may be because of failure to tell the creditor of address changes. The debt still exists and creditors are entitled to chase payment indefinitely.
Creditors can pursue an unsecured debt if:

• There is a CCJ outstanding against the debt.
• Payment to the account has been made within the past 6 years. This includes from other people named on the credit agreement.
• Contact has been made with any party named on the credit agreement. This can be by telephone, letter or email in order to request a balance or change details. An exception to this is contact for reasons to deny the debt exists.

LISAW_2

tiggrae wrote: »

when they're talking about the 6 year rule are you sure they don't mean the Statute of Limitations Act 1980 - because if so this is what that act has to say about chasing a debt

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.
When a Creditor can pursue an unsecured debt.

A debtor may think (or hope) a creditor has written-off a debt if they have not heard from them for a long time. This may be because of failure to tell the creditor of address changes. The debt still exists and creditors are entitled to chase payment indefinitely.
Creditors can pursue an unsecured debt if:

• There is a CCJ outstanding against the debt.
• Payment to the account has been made within the past 6 years. This includes from other people named on the credit agreement.
• Contact has been made with any party named on the credit agreement. This can be by telephone, letter or email in order to request a balance or change details. An exception to this is contact for reasons to deny the debt exists.

Its DISP 2.3.1 time limits for refferal of complaints to FOS

LISAW_2

LISAW wrote: »

Its DISP 2.3.1 time limits for refferal of complaints to FOS

oh and my 99 loan is still being paid through the lloyds debt recovery team and has been since it was referred to them in 2003!

LISAW_2

1) The Ombudsman cannot consider a complaint (except as described in (2)) if the complainant refers it to the Financial Ombudsman Service:
(a) less than eight weeks after receipt of the complaint by the firm , licensee1 or VJ participant, unless the firm, licensee1 or VJ participant has already sent the complainant its final response; or
(b) more than six months after the date on which the firm, licensee1 or VJ participant sends the complainant its final response advising him that he may refer his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service; or2
(c) more than six years after the event complained of or (if later) more than three years from the date on which he became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint, unless he has referred the complaint to the firm , licensee1 or VJ participant or to the Ombudsman within that period and has a written acknowledgement or some other record of the complaint having been received (but see DISP 2.3.5 R - DISP 2.3.6 R).3

(2) The Ombudsman can consider complaints outside the time limits in (1)(b) or (c) or in DISP 2.3.6 R4 when, in his view, the failure to comply with the time limits was as a result of exceptional circumstances or where he is required to do so by the Ombudsman Transitional Order (see DISP 2.3.2 G) or where the firm, licensee1 or VJ participant has not objected to the Ombudsman considering the complaint.5

Stillsmiling

Out of interest here is what FirstPlus say they will refund if you cancel the PPI before it expires.
First number is the term of the loan expired, second is the percentage of the PPI that will be refunded
12 months - 25%
24 months - 14%
36 months - 6%
48 months - 2%

Interestingly enough this wasn't sent to me at the beginning but only recently when I queried the cost of the PPI.

daynurse

:mad:

Stillsmiling wrote: »

Out of interest here is what FirstPlus say they will refund if you cancel the PPI before it expires.
First number is the term of the loan expired, second is the percentage of the PPI that will be refunded
12 months - 25%
24 months - 14%
36 months - 6%
48 months - 2%

Interestingly enough this wasn't sent to me at the beginning but only recently when I queried the cost of the PPI.

i knew i i didnt have them details either surely it should have been provided on onset of the contract/agreement thats why they have quoted me less than 20% im still hopping mad