PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Just had letter from FOS saying my complaint against MBNA now gone to adjudicator. On the letter is says

In the meantime, it would be very helpful if you could let us know of any recent changes in your personal circumstances that you may not have told us about already - for example.

You are now experiencing exceptional financial hardship because of circumstances connected to your complaint.

You are suffering serious ill-health which makes if extremely important to you that this complaint is resolved quickly.

Legal action is being threatened in relation to this case or

You have had an offer from MBNA since we last wrote and you have accepted this offer to settle your complaint, ( or are considering accepting it).


This has obviously been added since my last letter from them. Although fast tracking does not seem to work in some cases I have seen on here.

Fast tracking does not work for all. I know the reason why they have let me know about my firstplus one was because I have emailed and rang lots and the last time I rang i said that this would become time barred and I wanted to use the courts if they could not help. They then got back to me but I requested the fast track first week of august but did not meet the needs I suppose but I think its wrong when your home is at risk. If we cannot pay the mortgage then we get repossessed and it should not just go on benefits coming into the house etc. We all have our own different needs as to why these should be fast tracked.

I am so glad for you getting another before an adjudicator. I bet they passed yours between the lot of them and each one passed it on after the last one you had with them. No-one wanting to be the one to take it on:eek: .

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

As in the agreement, here is what they were referring to:

The monthly installments are as shown above (subject to loan conditions 2 and overleaf):


Interest:

Interest is calculated on a daily basis on the balance outstanding on your loan amount at the Interest Rate and is debited to your loan account on each monthly repayment date.

Interest is payable at such rate both before and after any judgement (the obligation will be dependent of and not merged with the judgement).

If any change is made to Finance Houses base rate (FHBR) (either upwards or downwards) during the agreement this will be reflected by the change in your Interest rate of the same percentage amount together with any percentage amounts previously ignored under (III) below in the following way:



I). Any change in the FHBR before the agreement is made or during the initial period of your loan will be ignored.



II). Any change in our interest rate will not be made on the date of publication of a chance in the FHBR (change date) but on the day after your next monthly repayment date which follows the change date.



III). No change will be made on your Interest rate unless the FHBR has increased or decreased by at least one and a half per cent from the rate of FHBR at the date of this agreement or (later) which resulted in the last change in your interest rate.



IV). If FHBR increased for some reason to be published we will select such an externally fixed interest rate as we reasonably consider appropriate to take the place of FHBR.

No, this is not it, its the terms and conditions that came with the actual insurance policy that you had at the time of the PPI. This was a seperate thing as it told you all about the insurance. It had its own terms and condition attached and you have to prove that the rebate was not acceptable. I read to him this morning the term and he stated "that is why you have to go to the insurer. Its the insurer that makes the terms and conditions of the insurance and also who gives the rebates against the insurance and as FIrstplus (or should i say the insurers) used the rule of 78 against the rebate and it is stated in the terms and conditions and they can ACTUALLY PROVE this by working back the figures like I have then this an actual UNFAIR REBATE.


The rule of 78 rebate method treats the insurance premium as ‘front loaded’ (ie a higher proportion of premium is allocated to the earlier periods of the policy). If a policy is cancelled part of the way through its term, the rebate payable therefore represents a lesser proportion of the full single premium than the unexpired term bears to the full term of the policy. Figure 1 shows the percentage of the initial premium that is given back to customers cancelling the PPI during the term when the rule of 78 is used to calculate the rebate. The example is based on an HSBC17 PPI policy with an initial premium £846.49 covering a £5,000 loan over a 36-month term. In some cases, certain providers charge an additional retained premium on cancellation of policy in calculating the rebate payable (for example, one distributor ([ ]) retains up to a further two months’ premiums beyond the cancellation date when calculating the rebate due).

This is the difference between yours and mine.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Di, rule of 78 was not used in your rebate here

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)


ALso Di, its not the agreement that you have to look at here. Its the terms and conditions of the actual POLICY!!!!

Its not rule 78 on the agreements, that is fine and to use, its what i was trying to explain to you the other night, its when it is used in the rebate of the PPI and it would state in your terms and did the working above and it was DEFINATELY not used against yours.

Cheers hun

Yep the settlement was that of £23646.04 after a part rebate of £1,533.69 of the Insurance premium was rebated.;)

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

No, this is not it, its the terms and conditions that came with the actual insurance policy that you had at the time of the PPI. This was a seperate thing as it told you all about the insurance. It had its own terms and condition attached and you have to prove that the rebate was not acceptable. I read to him this morning the term and he stated "that is why you have to go to the insurer. Its the insurer that makes the terms and conditions of the insurance and also who gives the rebates against the insurance and as FIrstplus (or should i say the insurers) used the rule of 78 against the rebate and it is stated in the terms and conditions and they can ACTUALLY PROVE this by working back the figures like I have then this an actual UNFAIR REBATE.


The rule of 78 rebate method treats the insurance premium as ‘front loaded’ (ie a higher proportion of premium is allocated to the earlier periods of the policy). If a policy is cancelled part of the way through its term, the rebate payable therefore represents a lesser proportion of the full single premium than the unexpired term bears to the full term of the policy. Figure 1 shows the percentage of the initial premium that is given back to customers cancelling the PPI during the term when the rule of 78 is used to calculate the rebate. The example is based on an HSBC17 PPI policy with an initial premium £846.49 covering a £5,000 loan over a 36-month term. In some cases, certain providers charge an additional retained premium on cancellation of policy in calculating the rebate payable (for example, one distributor ([ ]) retains up to a further two months’ premiums beyond the cancellation date when calculating the rebate due).

This is separate hun, and under the heading of Terms & Conditions, did not have nothing else.

Only agreement as shown earlier and that latest bit I added above is copied from the terms and conds.;)

(if you have an email I can send it to you if you would like to take a looksie).;)

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Cheers hun

Yep the settlement was that of £23646.04 after a part rebate of £1,533.69 of the Insurance premium was rebated.;)

Do you understand me here Di. I am not trying to put you off or making out mine was worse than yours I am trying to explain that some rebates are fine and others that were front loaded are not.

Singlep argued and argued this with Tiggrae in that he ended up saying that if all rebates are unfair then everyone that cannot go to the FOS for misselling should then state their rebates are unfair and take it to the FOS that way. He then said you had to prove your rebates are unfair to take them to anywhere and I completely understand him now.

That is why i was so confused with the difference between my calculations and the newer loans (that are not front end loaded). These ones that are front end loaded are the ones where the rebates are so unfair.

I did yours and another for millie was it... I worked them back and if you had the unfair rebate amount paid back to you then you would have been PAID for having the loan in the firstplace. When you worked mine back I still paid a wack of interest on the loan for the time I had it.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

This is separate hun, and under the heading of Terms & Conditions, did not have nothing else.

Only agreement as shown earlier and that latest bit I added above is copied from the terms and conds.;)

(if you have an email I can send it to you if you would like to take a looksie).;)

When you had the loan you would have had a POLICY document for the PPI. In this policy document is the terms and conditions of the POLICY - nothing to do with the loan at all.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Do you understand me here Di. I am not trying to put you off or making out mine was worse than yours I am trying to explain that some rebates are fine and others that were front loaded are not.

Singlep argued and argued this with Tiggrae in that he ended up saying that if all rebates are unfair then everyone that cannot go to the FOS for misselling should then state their rebates are unfair and take it to the FOS that way. He then said you had to prove your rebates are unfair to take them to anywhere and I completely understand him now.

That is why i was so confused with the difference between my calculations and the newer loans (that are not front end loaded). These ones that are front end loaded are the ones where the rebates are so unfair.

I did yours and another for millie was it... I worked them back and if you had the unfair rebate amount paid back to you then you would have been PAID for having the loan in the firstplace. When you worked mine back I still paid a wack of interest on the loan for the time I had it.

Yes I do know during the years they have changed the way they calculate in settlements, it was slightly different to my nemo to my endeavour I think.

All I do know is that on the Endeavour one, they calculate in accordance with the consumer credit rebate on early settlement regulations 1983.

Been checking through the underwriters work of when they I were settling this, the total amount they actually received from me during the whole loan was totalled in at £26565.18.
(It states total payments in total received = £26565.18).

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

When you had the loan you would have had a POLICY document for the PPI. In this policy document is the terms and conditions of the POLICY - nothing to do with the loan at all.

The first part I added today was that copied from the agreement (where on the agreement is states to refer to terms and conditions) that above was what I copied from the Terms and conditions, there are lots of it to add yet, if we could send attachments on here it would be a lot easier, and at the top of that actual paperwork it states:
Terms and conditions.;)

marshallka

Singlep if you ever take a look you were right all along and thanks for trying to explain about these unfair rebates to us lot....

It is under unfair terms in contracts that you have to state your claim and after all this time of waiting for an answer on this (because they was so much conflicting advice!!!) I have now been told that its the contract of the insurance policy that has the unfair term and then you have to prove the unfair term just like you had said.

Thanks but we all did not know....

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

The first part I added today was that copied from the agreement (where on the agreement is states to refer to terms and conditions) that above was what I copied from the Terms and conditions, there are lots of it to add yet, if we could send attachments on here it would be a lot easier, and at the top of that actual paperwork it states:
Terms and conditions.;)

Its within the

Termination of cover and benefits....

Mine is here

TERMINATION OF COVER AND BENEFIT

If you cancel Your policy before its normal expiry date You will receive a rebate of Your premium provided You have not made a successful claim. Your insurers will not calculate Your rebate proportionally, rather under the Rule of 78 set out in CCA 1974. This means allocatiing more of your premium to the early part of the policy when the Insurers bear more of the risk

Also Rule 78 is not set out in the CCA 1974 is it... going to check that one out...

The rule of 78 penalises borrowers early repayments by frontloading interest charges beyond what standard compound interest rules would prescribe.
The proportion of each re-payment that’s interest is frontloaded - re-pay your loan early and nearly all the capital’s still owing!


.