PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

We settled in 2003 but looking at how m colak has worked yours its very different to how he worked mine. He did mine on the V1.1 calculator and not with yours.. Don't really understand it..

I do not have a clue, but I am going to ask this member over at CAG on how Endeavour calculated her's as he or she had paid up the same time as me, and theirs was also taken out around the same time too, so that maybe worth checking into.;)


As soon as I get a reply I will let you know.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

This is what tron_ess posted about it
You probably had it against something more like 50% of the premium (an example as most firms are slightly different). So basically if you cancel in 30 days you get 100%. If in month 2 you get 50% !!! Then they apply Rule of 78 from there. The point is - you didn't know!! and probably still don't because the T&Cs of the policy didn't make this clear. Unfair contract term perhaps?
I have to agree with Tiggrae in that you may still have some mileage in this.

also this

Re Hurtanger/Commission - all firms are playing this one close to their chests. They know this unlikely to be under FOS jurisdiction, so they'll almost ignore this unless the complaint is specific on this.
They still have to comply with FSA DISP rules so even if they FOB you off they should still address the issue raised in the complaint - so i'd consider going back on this point alone.
This issue has joint liability! If commission wasn't disclosed by either broker or lender then they are jointly liable to re-imburse you the value of that commission. Problem of course is that this is slightly more legally technically, and considering some firms exposure you may find they'll fight this one all the way.

I do remember reading this.

Wonder if Tiggrae will pop along here at some point.;)

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

I do remember reading this.

Wonder if Tiggrae will pop along here at some point.;)

And this was posted as well by Troness

When you are claiming a rebate for cancelling insurance - insurers are still allowed to use Rule of 78. They merely take the premium amount - and apply their calculation to that. Then take that from the current loan.

The point I was making is that few actually give you Rule of 78. What they do is apply rule of 78 against a % of the original premium. They may only apply the rule of 78 against 25% of the premium. This means that if you cancelled after 45 days - you'd only get 25% rebate. That's their starting point!!! If you use true rule of 78 on a 5 year policy and cancelled in Month 2 you get approx 85% back. (crude maths here - but you get the picture).

Basically if firms were applying rule of 78 FOS would have no issues. The fact is that they first take 50% or more away, and then apply rule of 78!!

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

And this was posted as well by Troness

When you are claiming a rebate for cancelling insurance - insurers are still allowed to use Rule of 78. They merely take the premium amount - and apply their calculation to that. Then take that from the current loan.

The point I was making is that few actually give you Rule of 78. What they do is apply rule of 78 against a % of the original premium. They may only apply the rule of 78 against 25% of the premium. This means that if you cancelled after 45 days - you'd only get 25% rebate. That's their starting point!!! If you use true rule of 78 on a 5 year policy and cancelled in Month 2 you get approx 85% back. (crude maths here - but you get the picture).

Basically if firms were applying rule of 78 FOS would have no issues. The fact is that they first take 50% or more away, and then apply rule of 78!!

So that is how they worked it out then ? on yours anyway, am I right ?

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

So that is how they worked it out then ? on yours anyway, am I right ?

Yes, these are the unfair rebates that Troness says that the FOS will look into. Was yours worked out like this?? Mine was for sure and all of Firstplus's are.

That is why I am claiming this unfair rebate

Total cost of PPI applied to my settlement was £9K near on. Rebate was £90. Singlep says that you have to actually prove it though. That is why I need a formula. I calculated this before and Tiggrae said it was right some time ago. I am going to look back on the thread for any more working done by anyone else.

di3004

Someone had taken out a loan with Endeavour in 2003 and settled in full 2006, here is the remark they made about them:

"I have just sent my first letter to EPF requesting PPI back and complaining about the amount to settle the loan (rule 78 was used) so I will let you know how that goes too."

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Yes, these are the unfair rebates that Troness says that the FOS will look into. Was yours worked out like this?? Mine was for sure and all of Firstplus's are.

Its seems to be that "END" used the rule of 78 for settlements, well this is going by the above post I added about another member over the road.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Its seems to be that "END" used the rule of 78 for settlements, well this is going by the above post I added about another member over the road.

Yeah this is where the confusion has been. I know that use of rule 78 in settlement is challengable but I am on about the use in calculating the rebate of the PPI like troness explained to us.

di3004

I know this has been added here before


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2004/20041483.htm

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Someone had taken out a loan with Endeavour in 2003 and settled in full 2006, here is the remark they made about them:

"I have just sent my first letter to EPF requesting PPI back and complaining about the amount to settle the loan (rule 78 was used) so I will let you know how that goes too."

I did that too with FOS and remember got it thrown back and also told today that the use of it in settlement is ok to use.