PPI Reclaims not covered by the FOS

petermb_2

marshallka wrote: »

Section 33 here

SECTION 33 LIMITATION ACT 1980

Under s33, the court has a wider power to 'disapply' the normal time-limits on actions in respect of personal injury and death. The Limitation Act 1980 lays down six guidelines for the exercise of this power:

(a) the length of and reasons for the claimant's delay;
(b) the extent to which the cogency of evidence adduced by either party might be affected by the delay;
(c) the defendant's conduct after the cause of action arose, including his response to requests by the claimant for information or inspection for the purpose of ascertaining relevant facts;
(d) the duration of a disability of the claimant after the cause of action arose;
(e) the extent to which the claimant acted promptly and reasonably once he knew whether or not the act or omission of the defendant might be capable of giving rise to an action for damages; and
(f) the steps taken by the claimant to obtain expert advice and the nature of the advice he received.


I thought this section was for personal injury or death??? Can you clarify further?

Sections G and F are important. If it is "secret" how can you deal with it?

How can you take advice if you dont know what or if a commission was paid and to whom?

dont forget that in 1980 no-one had heard of financial irregularity claims. However, the laws that stand are applied just the same.

You try writing to your lender and asking how much commission they have received or paid. See what answer you get. They will tell you it is not your business.

marshallka

petermb wrote: »

Sections G and F are important. If it is "secret" how can you deal with it?

How can you take advice if you dont know what or if a commission was paid and to whom?

dont forget that in 1980 no-one had heard of financial irregularity claims. However, the laws that stand are applied just the same.

You try writing to your lender and asking how much commission they have received or paid. See what answer you get. They will tell you it is not your business.

I am confused here. I can't find a section 33 "g"? Was it amended at a later date?

petermb_2

sorry it is my age. You will forgive me i am sure. I meant E and F

marshallka

petermb wrote: »

sorry it is my age. You will forgive me i am sure. I meant E and F

I still thought that that whole section of 33 was only for claims in relation to "personal injury and death" and misselling etc does not fall into that one.

personal injury

An injury not to property, but to your body, mind or emotions. For example, if you slip and fall on a banana peel in the grocery store, personal injury covers any actual physical harm (broken leg and bruises) you suffered in the fall as well as the humiliation of falling in public, but not the harm of shattering your watch.

petermb_2

marshallka wrote: »

I still thought that that whole section of 33 was only for claims in relation to "personal injury and death" and misselling etc does not fall into that one.

personal injury

An injury not to property, but to your body, mind or emotions. For example, if you slip and fall on a banana peel in the grocery store, personal injury covers any actual physical harm (broken leg and bruises) you suffered in the fall as well as the humiliation of falling in public, but not the harm of shattering your watch.

Not according to the QC opinion that I have on the subject of Financial Irregularity claims. As I said, the act was created in 1980 before these claims existed but the theory behind the law is exactly the same as personal injury. The Access to Justice Laws 2000 were also created for Personal Injury injury in mind. However, they apply to all other claims also.

marshallka

petermb wrote: »

Not according to the QC opinion that I have on the subject of Financial Irregularity claims. As I said, the act was created in 1980 before these claims existed but the theory behind the law is exactly the same as personal injury. The Access to Justice Laws 2000 were also created for Personal Injury injury in mind. However, they apply to all other claims also.

God these laws are changing everyday. We will all be making complaints about them being misleading under the UTCCR as they are not written in plain language. I thought that that meant claims for "personal injury and death" and that was all that that section was applicable to. You would think that personal injury would have a definition in law also. Obviously wrong then.

petermb_2

marshallka wrote: »

God these laws are changing everyday. We will all be making complaints about them being misleading under the UTCCR as they are not written in plain language. I thought that that meant claims for "personal injury and death" and that was all that that section was applicable to. You would think that personal injury would have a definition in law also. Obviously wrong then.

No there is no seperate legislation for Personal Injury or any other claim.

They fall into either breach of contract or tort.

marshallka

petermb wrote: »

No there is no seperate legislation for Personal Injury or any other claim.

They fall into either breach of contract or tort.

OK. Just never seen that section being mentioned on here before. As I read it it seemed to relate to the personal injury or death claims.

Thanks for explaining

cripdan

Loan taken out Jan 2007, £15K inc PPI - never got any paperwork. Suddenly, in March 2009 Alliance & Leicester wrote to tell me they had to investgate PPI sales like mine. With the letter came copy of the docs I should have received. I was gobsmacked to find it was life cover only not protection against losing my job. To cut it short every possible thing I could have to demonstrate a mis-sell was in my case - obviously I wrote back accordingly.

Point is they finally come back with an offer which is all the PPI payments (about £450) & 8% simple on that (about £45 by their calculation).

Having checked FOS site I see they are basically following their recommendations except there is no regard for the trouble and worry this cause. Imagine, if I had lost my job, I'd mistakenly thought I'd be covered for repayments until I got work again (but at 57 that would be hard); but I'd have found myself liable for payments so would have had to use my savings. This was made clear to them in my letter.

I'm sure some would say don't be greedy you got all your payments back plus interest - but surely they should have at the least recognised the failure and possible implications and at the least offered a sum for distress and inconvinience as listed in the FOS site?

Your honest views please and any suggestions how best to approach this with A&L.

maxdp

cripdan wrote: »

Loan taken out Jan 2007, £15K inc PPI - never got any paperwork. Suddenly, in March 2009 Alliance & Leicester wrote to tell me they had to investgate PPI sales like mine. With the letter came copy of the docs I should have received. I was gobsmacked to find it was life cover only not protection against losing my job. To cut it short every possible thing I could have to demonstrate a mis-sell was in my case - obviously I wrote back accordingly.

Point is they finally come back with an offer which is all the PPI payments (about £450) & 8% simple on that (about £45 by their calculation).

Having checked FOS site I see they are basically following their recommendations except there is no regard for the trouble and worry this cause. Imagine, if I had lost my job, I'd mistakenly thought I'd be covered for repayments until I got work again (but at 57 that would be hard); but I'd have found myself liable for payments so would have had to use my savings. This was made clear to them in my letter.

I'm sure some would say don't be greedy you got all your payments back plus interest - but surely they should have at the least recognised the failure and possible implications and at the least offered a sum for distress and inconvinience as listed in the FOS site?

Your honest views please and any suggestions how best to approach this with A&L.

Hi There I see the point you are making but it would be very unusual to get extra for inconvenience etc.

On the FOS web site this is awarded against firms where it was blatantly obvious that the amount had been miss sold or the lenders were being awkward etc.

Honestly if they are paying back all premiums plus interest I would take that. Good Luck