Plevin and Paragon

DJFATBLOKE

:(I took out a £60k loan with Paragon that was going to be over 20 years although they have told me it was through compass finance who were not regulated at the time, and now no longer trading (november 2003) I paid the loan back in full in august 2004. I have a statement from Paragon who charged £12300 insurance, they refunded me £2k when I paid the loan back in 2004.So they basically charged me £10k for a 1 year loan! I have written to Paragon who said as the loan was not current in 2008 I am not entitled to any thing. Please can anyone help! FOS are not much more helpful.

[Deleted User]

DJFATBLOKE wrote: »

I have written to Paragon who said as the loan was not current in 2008 I am not entitled to any thing. FOS are not much more helpful.

Plevin does not apply in your circumstance, I'm afraid, so you'll have to give up on this one.

dunstonh

FOS are not much more helpful.

FOS are very helpful. However, they cannot breach the rules on this and quite clearly you are not entitled to a Plevin refund.

DJFATBLOKE

I understand the FOS have rules, I am just a bit miffed that if I had kept the loan for 20 years as originally planned, then the loan would have been current now meaning I would be entitled to something. As I paid it back after a year I basically shot myself in the foot.

dunstonh

DJFATBLOKE wrote: »

I understand the FOS have rules, I am just a bit miffed that if I had kept the loan for 20 years as originally planned, then the loan would have been current now meaning I would be entitled to something. As I paid it back after a year I basically shot myself in the foot.

FOS have rules on how they work. However, they review complaints on the basis of the FCA rules and law as well as a healthy dose of fairness.

However, all that said, yes, you did lose out because you paid it back early.

The date comes about because a claim could be made against a lender under s.140A. The new Section 140a was inserted into the CCA by the 2006 consumer credit act (which became effective in the 2 years following)

That means that sums must have been payable (or capable of becoming payable) under the underlying credit agreement (which the PPI covered or covers) on or after 6 April 2008.

So, it's not a date plucked at random but reflects a section of an act of parliament that changed.

In a way, you could consider that in respect of old lending that started long before that new section in the 2006 CCA was also unfairly treated some lenders where the money was lent under a different version of the CCA. Like all things in life, things are not always black & white or one sided.

[Deleted User]

DJFATBLOKE wrote: »

As I paid it back after a year I basically shot myself in the foot.

Conversely, if you had continued to pay it for two decades that would have attracted far more interest than you paid after only a year. So, looking at it from that perspective, you haven't lost out financially at all (other than not having a payout right now)..