PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

di3004

oscar52 wrote: »

Would you trust a bank to write to you??

a query though, how are the refunds being done? - Will it be taken out of the loan, or will i be sent a cheque? - I would have thought with it being a mis-sale it would be the latter.

Your right, your better off writing to them.;)
When their after your money that's the only time we will hear, yet when they owe you.........:rolleyes: , its a different matter, so good on you for being ahead of these.:D

I will have to try to find out how they are paying out, but I think its cheque payment, maybe someone else can confirm this.;)

oscar52

happy if its a cheque - £1000 will pay off my cc and give me a few quid

di3004

oscar52 wrote: »

happy if its a cheque - £1000 will pay off my cc and give me a few quid

I think the ball may be in your court, and I would mention this to them, if you have been mis sold its not your fault and you should have your say.;)
Every penny counts, and yes it all helps to pay off something else.

Read this, if you have not already done so.

http://www.finextra.com/fullpr.asp?id=23838

And this:
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2008/115.shtml

oscar52

This may be pushing my luck, but am anticipating their reply of "go away"

If it should come to that, should I request a copy of the call? Afterall, if they been fined for mis-selling and they have no copy of my call, how will they prove it?

di3004

oscar52 wrote: »

This may be pushing my luck, but am anticipating their reply of "go away"

If it should come to that, should I request a copy of the call? Afterall, if they been fined for mis-selling and they have no copy of my call, how will they prove it?

They should now know better not to push you away.

I would request by writing for a copy of the disc recordings of your telephone calls.

They should provide this for you with your request, although many have had to request for a SAR (subject access request) in order to receive this, as they have to provide everything they have on you on your account.
I expect you are aware that you will have to pay £10 cheque or postal order for the SAR.

It maybe worth your while just seeing if they will provide this for you free of charge first.

If you need a template for the SAR then please let me know, I did also add one on here last night, you may come across a few pages back.;)

And as you know send everything by recorded post.

oscar52

Might be an idea if needed.

Dont need a template, got one somewhere and seen thousands in work (work for MBNA for my sins:o , dealing with all sorts of requests like give me my money back!

di3004

oscar52 wrote: »

Might be an idea if needed.

Dont need a template, got one somewhere and seen thousands in work (work for MBNA for my sins:o , dealing with all sorts of requests like give me my money back!

Cool......:D , and good luck.
I do think you will be fine here but yes always best to be prepared.;)

di3004

Received an email from the casework section (FOS), I forgot to add the ref details of my query - Endeavour, to find out if its them I should be dealing with as the complaint is already within the FOS, or the insurer, as the insurer was under jurisdiction when taking this loan out and not the broker or lender themselves.

The email says they will look into this for me as soon as they receive the ref number of what case I am enquiring about.

Will let you know as soon as I hear what they say.;)

dreamer33

Just found this whilst searching my agreement is actually unregulated don't think I have a leg to stand on here my agreement was for £40K plus £9796K ppi:


Article - Consumer LawWhat happens if the retailer (and not the finance company) told me something during negotiations?
When a consumer is looking to acquire goods but cannot afford to pay in full, they commonly enter into a hire purchase agreement (where a finance company lets them to the consumer who has an option to buy them at the end of the agreement) or a hire agreement (where a finance company lets them to the consumer who does not have an option to buy them).
During negotiations, certain promises or statements may have been made (which lawyers call representations) and they may later turn out to be false. What can a consumer do in those situations? The answer depends on what type of credit agreement they have entered in to.
Regulated or Unregulated?
If an agreement is with an individual and the credit is less than £25,000 then it will generally be regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('the 1974 Act'). If so, the consumer has a number of additional rights and protections which are implied into the agreement. It is worth remembering that an individual is a person, a sole trader or a partnership of two or three partners: Section 189(1) of the 1974 Act.
In April 2008 the £25,000 will be removed (as a result of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 which will amend the definition of consumer credit agreement under Section 8 of the 1974 Act). At that stage, any agreement with an individual will be regulated by the 1974 Act (unless the individual is a 'high net worth' but you really need to be a lottery winner to fall into this category!).
Regulated Agreements
If the agreement is regulated then Section 56 of the 1974 Act will apply. This states that:
(1) In this Act "antecedent negotiations" means any negotiations with the debtor or hirer-
(b) conducted by a credit-broker in relation to goods sold or proposed to be sold by the credit-broker to the creditor before forming the subject-matter of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(a), or
and "negotiator" means the person by whom negotiations are so conducted with the debtor or hirer.
(2) Negotiations with the debtor in a case falling within subsection (1)(b) ... shall be deemed to be conducted by the negotiator in the capacity of agent of the creditor as well as in his actual capacity.
This means that if the supplier makes representations of fact during negotiations (which the consumer relies on) and they cause her to enter into the agreement then the 1974 Act states that it will be as though the finance company has made the same promises. This means that a consumer has a potential claim to resind the contract (essentially cancelling it) for misrepresentation (subject to her proving there was a statement of fact, which she relied on and then entered into the agreement) or, if she has lost her right to rescind, claim damages for misrepresentation from the the finance company.
A problem with this rule recently surfaced in the case of Black Horse Limited v Langford [2007] EWHC 907. In that case, the supplier sold the goods to a broker. The broker then sold the goods to the finance company, who then let them to the consumer. The Court decided that because the goods had been sold to the finance company by the broker, not the retailer, then Section 56 did not apply and the consumer had no claim against the finance company for the representation.
It is therefore important for any consumer to check whether the retailer is selling the goods to the finance company or to the broker. If the goods are sold to the broker, the consumer will have no claim against the finance company (but may, of course, have a claim against the retailer under a collateral contract).
Unregulated Agreements
The general principle is that the retailer who sells goods to the finance company under an unregulated agreement is not the finance company's agent unless exceptional circumstances apply: Branwhite v Worcester Works Finance Limited [1969] 1 AC 552.
If, therefore, a false statement of fact has been made by the supplier then it will not give the consumer a claim against the finance company but may give her a claim against the retailer for damages under a collateral contract: Andrews v Hopkinson [1957] 1 QB 229. To be successful and show that Branwhite does not apply, the consumer must show there are some "exceptional circumstances" which, by their very nature, are uncommon.
Summary
It is important for a consumer to be aware who it is dealing with. It is common when acquiring an item like a car for the consumer to be dealing with at least two independent companies: even though they may use the same badge above the door. If the agreement is regulated then a consumer will have additional protection. If the agreement is unregulated then it is likely that the consumer is left with little (if any) claim against the finance company if the statements of facts turn out to be wrong.
Article First Published: 26 July 2007

DisclaimerThe views on this website are not necessarily those of the Student Law Journal and is not intended to provide legal advice. Any legal problems should be specifically addressed to a solicitor.© Student Law Journal, 2001 - 2008. All Rights Reserved

di3004

dreamer33 wrote: »

Just found this whilst searching my agreement is actually unregulated don't think I have a leg to stand on here my agreement was for £40K plus £9796K ppi:


Article - Consumer LawWhat happens if the retailer (and not the finance company) told me something during negotiations?
When a consumer is looking to acquire goods but cannot afford to pay in full, they commonly enter into a hire purchase agreement (where a finance company lets them to the consumer who has an option to buy them at the end of the agreement) or a hire agreement (where a finance company lets them to the consumer who does not have an option to buy them).
During negotiations, certain promises or statements may have been made (which lawyers call representations) and they may later turn out to be false. What can a consumer do in those situations? The answer depends on what type of credit agreement they have entered in to.
Regulated or Unregulated?
If an agreement is with an individual and the credit is less than £25,000 then it will generally be regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('the 1974 Act'). If so, the consumer has a number of additional rights and protections which are implied into the agreement. It is worth remembering that an individual is a person, a sole trader or a partnership of two or three partners: Section 189(1) of the 1974 Act.
In April 2008 the £25,000 will be removed (as a result of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 which will amend the definition of consumer credit agreement under Section 8 of the 1974 Act). At that stage, any agreement with an individual will be regulated by the 1974 Act (unless the individual is a 'high net worth' but you really need to be a lottery winner to fall into this category!).
Regulated Agreements
If the agreement is regulated then Section 56 of the 1974 Act will apply. This states that:
(1) In this Act "antecedent negotiations" means any negotiations with the debtor or hirer-
(b) conducted by a credit-broker in relation to goods sold or proposed to be sold by the credit-broker to the creditor before forming the subject-matter of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(a), or
and "negotiator" means the person by whom negotiations are so conducted with the debtor or hirer.
(2) Negotiations with the debtor in a case falling within subsection (1)(b) ... shall be deemed to be conducted by the negotiator in the capacity of agent of the creditor as well as in his actual capacity.
This means that if the supplier makes representations of fact during negotiations (which the consumer relies on) and they cause her to enter into the agreement then the 1974 Act states that it will be as though the finance company has made the same promises. This means that a consumer has a potential claim to resind the contract (essentially cancelling it) for misrepresentation (subject to her proving there was a statement of fact, which she relied on and then entered into the agreement) or, if she has lost her right to rescind, claim damages for misrepresentation from the the finance company.
A problem with this rule recently surfaced in the case of Black Horse Limited v Langford [2007] EWHC 907. In that case, the supplier sold the goods to a broker. The broker then sold the goods to the finance company, who then let them to the consumer. The Court decided that because the goods had been sold to the finance company by the broker, not the retailer, then Section 56 did not apply and the consumer had no claim against the finance company for the representation.
It is therefore important for any consumer to check whether the retailer is selling the goods to the finance company or to the broker. If the goods are sold to the broker, the consumer will have no claim against the finance company (but may, of course, have a claim against the retailer under a collateral contract).
Unregulated Agreements
The general principle is that the retailer who sells goods to the finance company under an unregulated agreement is not the finance company's agent unless exceptional circumstances apply: Branwhite v Worcester Works Finance Limited [1969] 1 AC 552.
If, therefore, a false statement of fact has been made by the supplier then it will not give the consumer a claim against the finance company but may give her a claim against the retailer for damages under a collateral contract: Andrews v Hopkinson [1957] 1 QB 229. To be successful and show that Branwhite does not apply, the consumer must show there are some "exceptional circumstances" which, by their very nature, are uncommon.
Summary
It is important for a consumer to be aware who it is dealing with. It is common when acquiring an item like a car for the consumer to be dealing with at least two independent companies: even though they may use the same badge above the door. If the agreement is regulated then a consumer will have additional protection. If the agreement is unregulated then it is likely that the consumer is left with little (if any) claim against the finance company if the statements of facts turn out to be wrong.
Article First Published: 26 July 2007

DisclaimerThe views on this website are not necessarily those of the Student Law Journal and is not intended to provide legal advice. Any legal problems should be specifically addressed to a solicitor.© Student Law Journal, 2001 - 2008. All Rights Reserved

Yes this would be unregulated.

I think its anything to do with £25K plus is unregulated and below that regulated.
When did you take this one out hun ?