PPI Reclaiming discussion

Ms_Sparkle

ok, this is quite confusing. I do know we are not returning the car to the seller but to welcome, and I do know that it was signed at the sellers address not in the office. Do you think that means we can go after the seller or still go after Welcome. Or is it best we just pay it off and give the car back, and either leave it or try and claim a refund. It is very confusing, but you are being brilliant help m.colek.

m.colak

stu_2008 wrote: »

where can i find these acts so i can quote some fancy wordings from them or even quote the whole thing?

i know with the halifax one i can claim that it was forced upon me and rushed as it was done face to face with no time to think or read through any details, but the ones on the phone im not sure...

thing thats gotten to me, is i took out a loan with liv vic taken out for 5 years, paid off after year 4(a week ago), i was ill like 7 times, but because it wasnt over the 31 days i could never claim, however i was ill, 7 months in a row, 2 weeks at a time, in hospital 4 of those times too but could never claim

Ok first of all ask for copies of the phone conversations that you held with them under the terms of the credit consumer Act 1974. Once you have those either as transcribed or audio (ask for audio) you have then got evidence on how much PPI was discussed. If you look earlier on this thread then the exact wording that you require for both can be found and cut and pasted.

m.colak

sacha1113 wrote: »

ok, this is quite confusing. I do know we are not returning the car to the seller but to welcome, and I do know that it was signed at the sellers address not in the office. Do you think that means we can go after the seller or still go after Welcome. Or is it best we just pay it off and give the car back, and either leave it or try and claim a refund. It is very confusing, but you are being brilliant help m.colek.

Ok if the car is being returned to Welcome then go after the car company for a full refund of the premiums as i don't believe you'll be able to get them from welcome as they didn't mis sell you the policy. I would pay the £800 to them get rid of the car and then once its settled go after the car company who will attempt to reclaim from welcome. Sorry it sound a bit funny but the fact of the matter the agreement between the car company and welcome is possibly at fault and because welcome is the third party you can't claim against them i believe in this case but i will stand corrected if anybody else can give any other advice on this one. Check the rest of the thread someone else might have had the same issue. That is unless you can prove that welcome carried out the training of the car salesperson in the financial offer.

Ms_Sparkle

Thanks very much for your help. I will look into doing that.

stu_2008

I didnt think they would still have the phone calls though?

didnt even think i could get hold of that information

m.colak

stu_2008 wrote: »

I didnt think they would still have the phone calls though?

didnt even think i could get hold of that information

Try it you will be surprised as how often do you hear "This phone call is being recorded for training purpose's". If they can't provided this then hammer them with the foreamentioned 1967 Mis-representation 1967 Act as it will be then up to them to prove otherwise in which they can't. You don't need any fancy wording or to sound like a lawyer.

All you need to say is that you believe that you we missold this policy in particulary in the area relating to negligency and as much was a direct violation of the 1967 Mis-representation Act.

You can make it better worded if you want but in reality you won't have to prove anything it's all up to them.

louietudor

louietudor wrote: »

hi all - ive had my final response from Capital One and it obviously a big fat no :mad: - its £1200 plus interest - i really don't want this to drag on so am i better going to FOS or MCOL - any quick advise on the pro's and con's would be much appreciated

mr mcloak its so good to see you back here :D:D:beer::j :T- weve all been floundering abit to be honest

can you help with my question above

m.colak

louietudor wrote: »

mr mcloak its so good to see you back here :D:D:beer::j :T- weve all been floundering abit to be honest

can you help with my question above

Ok give me the low down of the case and i'll see what i have up my sleeve:p

stu_2008

m.colak wrote: »

Try it you will be surprised as how often do you hear "This phone call is being recorded for training purpose's". If they can't provided this then hammer them with the foreamentioned 1967 Mis-representation 1967 Act as it will be then up to them to prove otherwise in which they can't. You don't need any fancy wording or to sound like a lawyer.

All you need to say is that you believe that you we missold this policy in particulary in the area relating to negligency and as much was a direct violation of the 1967 Mis-representation Act.

You can make it better worded if you want but in reality you won't have to prove anything it's all up to them.

ok will do....

this is a big help and if all goes to plan i can expect probably around 6k altogether from the loans.....

i have to say though, halifax wasnt half helpful on the phone and took it really seriously...

MBNA was just dam rude with me

and Liv Vic siad theyre inundated with complaints about PPI's

m.colak

stu_2008 wrote: »

ok will do....

this is a big help and if all goes to plan i can expect probably around 6k altogether from the loans.....

i have to say though, halifax wasnt half helpful on the phone and took it really seriously...

MBNA was just dam rude with me

and Liv Vic siad theyre inundated with complaints about PPI's

One point to make remember during this it isn't your problem it's now theirs. They are still under regulation via the information commisioner so if they don't reply to your request in 8 weeks get him involved as they are required by law. Halifax are all growl and no bite have taken to court 4 times so far and now am threating to send the baliffs round to there head office:D