PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

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.

Definately confusing......

I do not have a clue when working out settlements anyway, but each company seem to have their own way of doing this don't they ?

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

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.

Yes that's right !!

Now they should really move on with yours now, because its not your fault it was thrown back at you and if they had dealt with this one earlier then I'm sure it would have been sorted out by now.......:rolleyes: !!!

di3004

Marshallka sent you a pm, something for you to download to your computer if to, also used by the OFT I was told.;)
Also handy for Rule of 78 calculation.;)

di3004

http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/legal/cca/Earlysettlement

I know this has been added here before, and it seems that they did not change this until May 2005, so they would not have used the new way for mine either - only for new agreements.

marshallka

Originally Posted by marshallka
Just dragging this up from here Tiggrae. If I win with this unfair rebate with Barclays FIrstplus then what am i looking at from the figures posted above. (My previous post). Am i looking at the 78% of the unfair rebate or will they work it like this and am i allowed to argue this with the FOS and also are the FOS going to back me.!!!

If first plus work on 78% of the remainder of my premiums its 21 months to 60 months and not 121 as they charged me. That means they would only offer 78% of 1177.05 being £918.09.:eek: . No way would i accept this. Its doing me out of £5772.32.:mad: plus stat interest.

then Tiggrae replied this

no that's just what FP have been offering prior to a complaint being taken to the FOS

di3004

Reading back on "Ends" Terms & Conds, they have on this:

If you have obtained unsatisfactory goods or services under the transaction financed by this agreement, apart from any purchased out of cash loan, you may have the right to sue the supplier, us or both.
Similarly if the contract is not fulfiled, perhaps the supplier has gone out of business, you still may be able to sue us.

I did not know how to actually take this really, as Click was the one who actually sold this to us and even though they are not out of business, they will not as you know take any responsibility with the mis selling.
So if this is the case then it would be these that I would have to go to if the above did happen, am I correct or not ?

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Originally Posted by marshallka
Just dragging this up from here Tiggrae. If I win with this unfair rebate with Barclays FIrstplus then what am i looking at from the figures posted above. (My previous post). Am i looking at the 78% of the unfair rebate or will they work it like this and am i allowed to argue this with the FOS and also are the FOS going to back me.!!!

If first plus work on 78% of the remainder of my premiums its 21 months to 60 months and not 121 as they charged me. That means they would only offer 78% of 1177.05 being £918.09.:eek: . No way would i accept this. Its doing me out of £5772.32.:mad: plus stat interest.

then Tiggrae replied this

no that's just what FP have been offering prior to a complaint being taken to the FOS

So your figures must be correct then ?;)

marshallka

for my loan of £21163
I paid £11000
and then £20400
settlement in total £31400
Less my rebate which i will claim back 6690 = £24410 total cost of loan (more than we actually borrowed)



Di total loan £23835
paid £3336
and then £23646 settlement in total £26982 less rebate £5507 = £21475 (less than you actually borrowed)



There is a difference here. We paid back more than we borrowed even with the rebate if we win

Di, you paid less than you actually borrowed after the rebate if you win...

I am just trying to work out a formula here and why this is so different with some companies. WHat is this formula and why does it not work the same.....

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

So your figures must be correct then ?;)

I don't know then. Would you say this is how they are worked out. I just don't know. There must be a way of doing this. I will carry on looking at tiggraes posts from when she worked them for people.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/legal/cca/Earlysettlement

I know this has been added here before, and it seems that they did not change this until May 2005, so they would not have used the new way for mine either - only for new agreements.

Di, you are not understanding this rule 78 applied against the rebate. I did not either but its nothing to do with rule 78 against the settlement. That can be used and is still today on older agreements, its about using it in the calculation of the rebate of the insurance. Its completely different and there is something on the FSA site about it in the unfair rebates bit. I will find it and post it here.


The financial watchdog is also keen for insurers to clarify how they calculate refunds. Banks usually calculate the refund amount using a controversial method, entitled the Rule of 78, rather than on a pro-rata basis.
Rule of 78 works on the assumption that premium payments are higher in the early part of the loan because the bank may have to cover a higher amount at the beginning of the loan than at the end. Therefore a higher proportion of the total premium is attributed to the first few months of the loan.

For example, Nationwide customers requesting a refund a year into a three-year loan would only receive 42% of the cost of the PPI back as a refund, while Barclays would pay you just 56% of the premium if you cancelled a quarter of the way through.