Still confused about my ppi

TheGardener

We do understand the frustration - but if you use a 3rd party to claim the PPI back, the OR will get the whole payment and the 3rd party will come to you for their cut so don't even try.
The OR's fees and charges significantly increase the amount you owe so even if the PPI covered the original amount you put into BR - it probably wouldn't cover all the fees.
I do remember a post way back from one of the expert posters on here who said that the IS Service were in the process of appointing a team to claim all the PPI for the OR from all the BR cases. Whether that ever happened I don't know but no matter how unfair it seems - once you are BR you can not claim back the money and there is no point losing sleep over it.

silvercar

If the amount you "win" as your PPI claim is enough to settle your bankruptcy, then my understanding is that the bankruptcy would be annuled and any excess returned to you.

luvchocolate

silvercar wrote: »

If the amount you "win" as your PPI claim is enough to settle your bankruptcy, then my understanding is that the bankruptcy would be annuled and any excess returned to you.

Also please take into account the O.Rs fees would need to be paid mine were approx £25,000

debt_doctor

Hi,

When you become bankrupt, all the financially linked things you were entitled to do became the right of the OR instead. In bankruptcy the OR 'stands in the shoes' of the bankrupt. Carrying out such things are called rights of action - rights of action belonged to you before you were bankrupt regarding financial matters prior to bankruptcy - and from the day of your bankruptcy they did not.
You are prevented by law from making a claim for any PPI that was taken out prior to bankruptcy - even if the associated debt was paid off in full prior to bankruptcy.
These rights of action don't just apply to PPI claims, the apply to a right to make an employment tribunal claim, a claim for damages and pretty much anything you could sue for or complain about.
It was true that several years ago, the Insolvency Service were looking in to making these claims to benefit the estate. They came up against an immovable object - whilst the right to make the claim belonged to the OR - It was miss selling against the bankrupt, and they therefore needed the bankrupt to agree that the PPI was missold. If there was nothing in it for the bankrupt then why would the bankrupt make that assertion? The Insolvency Service did not want to get involved in 'closet deals' with bankrupts so didn't proceed with the plan.
However, what they did do was quietly rely on bankrupts (knowingly or not)to make claims they were not allowed to make knowing full well the OR would be handed the cash after the bankrupt had voluntarily said it was miss-sold.
It gets worse for the bankrupt as the OR will get the money, but the costs for work done could end up with the former bankrupt! Possibly could argue that such a debt would be a 'contingent liability' (a debt related to a action or liability that occurred prior to bankruptcy) no guarantees though.

DD

renegadefm

I understand when you become bankrupt, all the financially linked things you were entitled to do became the right of the OR.

But my point is I am now over 10 years after going bankrupt. I'm basically no longer bankrupt, and all these companies are now offering me PPI.

Let's look at it this way. Let's say I come into a serious amount of money now, like an inheritance or something, surely that doesn't need to go to the OR after 10 years of being bankrupt.

So whats the difference of claiming PPI 10 years after going bankrupt? It was something me or anyone was paying without realizing it at the time. So surely it should be seen as money owed to me.

I can understand had I now gone bankrupt recently and not being able to claim back PPI, thats understandable, but now I'm free of bankruptcy surely I'm entitled to the money I payed out on PPI?

It's like a long awaited gift. Similarly had I just been given a large sum of money surely?

BoGoF

Can you not understand the concept that the very people you are expecting to refund you are the very ones you owed money to when made bankrupt? It's not your money.

An inheritance is comparing apples and oranges.

debt_doctor

renegadefm wrote: »

I understand when you become bankrupt, all the financially linked things you were entitled to do became the right of the OR.

But my point is I am now over 10 years after going bankrupt. I'm basically no longer bankrupt, and all these companies are now offering me PPI.

Let's look at it this way. Let's say I come into a serious amount of money now, like an inheritance or something, surely that doesn't need to go to the OR after 10 years of being bankrupt.

So whats the difference of claiming PPI 10 years after going bankrupt? It was something me or anyone was paying without realizing it at the time. So surely it should be seen as money owed to me.

I can understand had I now gone bankrupt recently and not being able to claim back PPI, thats understandable, but now I'm free of bankruptcy surely I'm entitled to the money I payed out on PPI?

It's like a long awaited gift. Similarly had I just been given a large sum of money surely?

In bankruptcy all assets vest in the trustee WITHOUT time limit - the notable exception to this is the family home of the bankrupt / bankrupts spouse / ex spouse - which has a time limit of 3 years to deal with the property.
Your 'example' with inheritance does not work - the inheritance was never an asset in your bankruptcy.

Prior to 29th May 2000 pensions were an asset in bankruptcy. I ve seen about 3 or 4 cases in the last year who were bankrupt prior to 2000 and now those ex bankrupts of at least 18 years ago have reached the age of 55, the OR has claimed their pensions in full as an asset.
To take the worst case scenario, a person aged 20yrs who went bankrupt on May 28th 2000 will have their pension seized in the year 2035 - 35 years after they went bankrupt.

When you decided to become bankrupt you availed yourself of the Insolvency Act 1986 in which actions and time limits are part of that legislation.

You cannot make your own definition of the law.

DD