RBS Credit Card PPI increased debt over 16 years!

gossfam1

Deleted_User wrote: »

I can confirm that card taken out before the new regs came in did NOT need the minimum payments to be changed.

I can know this because I implemented the rules across several card portfolios.

It was up to each lender as to whether they chose to change the back book.

And therefore I need to obtain a CURRENT terms and conditions to see if the card should be meeting the minimum repayments. If it does, then they have broken the T&C's ?

[Deleted User]

If her current terms had been updated to the new min payments and they have not been taking payment in accordance with them then yes, it would be a breach of the terms, obviously.

gossfam1

BoGoF wrote: »

You keep saying she didn't sign up for it......can you prove this. If you can go ahead with the complaint.....it's not us here that you need to convince.

Is it not up to the bank to produce a contract that she (knowingly) agreed to PPI?

BoGoF

Deleted_User wrote: »

If her current terms had been updated to the new min payments and they have not been taking payment in accordance with them then yes, it would be a breach of the terms, obviously.

How would the current T and C's help you?

Did you not read or just not understand the post from zx81?

gossfam1

BoGoF wrote: »

How would the current T and C's help you?

Did you not read or just not understand the post from zx81?

ZX81 just confirmed that if T&C's had been updated, then they would be in breech..

NCC-1707

gossfam1 wrote: »

ZX81 just confirmed that if T&C's had been updated, then they would be in breech..

Did you read where ZX81 said:-

'It was up to each lender as to whether they chose to change the back book.'

BoGoF

gossfam1 wrote: »

ZX81 just confirmed that if T&C's had been updated, then they would be in breech..

Reading things out of context again.

gossfam1

NCC-1707 wrote: »

Did you read where ZX81 said:-

'It was up to each lender as to whether they chose to change the back book.'

"If her current terms had been updated to the new min payments and they have not been taking payment in accordance with them then yes, it would be a breach of the terms, obviously."


How is this taken out of context? Surely this is what I need to check?
I can't assume they did change them, nor can you any of you assume they didn't? It depends on what the current T&C's state with respect to minimum repayments

[Deleted User]

Odd thread. Interesting the repeated use of the phrase "My argument is.."
Where have I seen that before, I wonder?

BoGoF

Of course the current t and c's are going to specify the revised minimum payment terms but that does not mean they were applied to older accounts. What do you think the chances of a credit card company who were adopting the change for older accounts not actually doing it in your wife's case.

Surely it is a moot point anyway since you, seemingly, have a rock solid PPI mis selling claim.