PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

chipbeck

Just drafted this lengthy letter to GE Money. Proof reading/advice would be appreciated.

Firstly may I thank you for your swift response in providing both the SAR and CCA documents I requested in April.
Unfortunately these documents have, as I suspected, brought to light a glaring error on the account.
In April I asked for a copy of the CCA for the account and subsequently sent in a SAR for the account. I received two copies of the CCA one as a result of the original request and one forming part of the documentation returned as a result of the SAR request.
The documentation states that Premium Protection at 1.5% is applicable to the account, this is not, and should never have been the case. The CCA from 1996 clearly shows that the box for ‘I do not need Payment Protection’ has been ticked.
I appreciate that GE Money procured the account at a later date and therefore does have some mitigating circumstances in the fact that the error had already taken place.
The question know is, where do we go from here?
In simple terms I have been charged a large amount of money over a period of over 13 years for a service I clearly indicated I didn’t require. Had the account still been with the original group I’m sure a resolution would have been fairly simple as all records would have been available in order to reach an agreeable settlement. Unfortunately this isn’t the case and you have already informed me of your inability to provide copies of all statements since GE money took over the account, let alone the pre GE statements.
I have little knowledge of the legalities here, but in simple terms if a person indicates they don’t require a service then they should not be billed for it. I appreciate that I could get this matter resolved by the FOS, but to be honest I see little point in getting them involved in what is as I see it, a clear cut case. The result would no doubt be a drawn out case and possibly a fine being levied by the FOS, neither of which would benefit myself in any way.
In summary, I am quite prepared to accept this situation has arisen as some form of clerical error and, should an agreeable settlement be agreed, am prepared to accept and bring the matter to a close. I do have concerns as to how a final figure will be reached without the statements required being available, but I will just have to leave that with you.
Finally to reiterate, with the large amount of money that is obviously involved here I would appreciate that the matter can be dealt with both swiftly and amicably.

m.colak

marshallka wrote: »

M colak, have you read what happened with my thing about the SIN payment at settlement.

Yep it sounds like their on dodgy ground again. However i'm not suprised about the FOS as you have to remember the bulk of the work is done by the adjudicator's and if you don't put the right thing on the complaints form from the start it can take quite a while. Thats why i say if you have a geninue hardship case (sorry don't know any other way to put it) they make sure you state it as it might mean the difference of processing time in months.

The good news is that you complaint is already in the queue so as long as you original complaint still stands you won't lose any time due to any amendments. Did you ask what SIN stood for as this could be an indicator whether it constitues an additional charge or is a valid interest (doubt it). Just stick too your guns your doing great.;)

m.colak

chipbeck wrote: »

Just drafted this lengthy letter to GE Money. Proof reading/advice would be appreciated.

Firstly may I thank you for your swift response in providing both the SAR and CCA documents I requested in April.
Unfortunately these documents have, as I suspected, brought to light a glaring error on the account.
In April I asked for a copy of the CCA for the account and subsequently sent in a SAR for the account. I received two copies of the CCA one as a result of the original request and one forming part of the documentation returned as a result of the SAR request.
The documentation states that Premium Protection at 1.5% is applicable to the account, this is not, and should never have been the case. The CCA from 1996 clearly shows that the box for ‘I do not need Payment Protection’ has been ticked.
I appreciate that GE Money procured the account at a later date and therefore does have some mitigating circumstances in the fact that the error had already taken place.
The question know is, where do we go from here?
In simple terms I have been charged a large amount of money over a period of over 13 years for a service I clearly indicated I didn’t require. Had the account still been with the original group I’m sure a resolution would have been fairly simple as all records would have been available in order to reach an agreeable settlement. Unfortunately this isn’t the case and you have already informed me of your inability to provide copies of all statements since GE money took over the account, let alone the pre GE statements.
I have little knowledge of the legalities here, but in simple terms if a person indicates they don’t require a service then they should not be billed for it. I appreciate that I could get this matter resolved by the FOS, but to be honest I see little point in getting them involved in what is as I see it, a clear cut case. The result would no doubt be a drawn out case and possibly a fine being levied by the FOS, neither of which would benefit myself in any way.
In summary, I am quite prepared to accept this situation has arisen as some form of clerical error and, should an agreeable settlement be agreed, am prepared to accept and bring the matter to a close. I do have concerns as to how a final figure will be reached without the statements required being available, but I will just have to leave that with you.
Finally to reiterate, with the large amount of money that is obviously involved here I would appreciate that the matter can be dealt with both swiftly and amicably.

Sounds great to me:beer:

Confucius quote - Do not use a cannon to kill a mosquito

and i mean by that the company is the mosquito (an irretating pest whom life would be a lot easier without sometimes).

marshallka

m.colak wrote: »

Yep it sounds like their on dodgy ground again. However i'm not suprised about the FOS as you have to remember the bulk of the work is done by the adjudicator's and if you don't put the right thing on the complaints form from the start it can take quite a while. Thats why i say if you have a geninue hardship case (sorry don't know any other way to put it) they make sure you state it as it might mean the difference of processing time in months.

The good news is that you complaint is already in the queue so as long as you original complaint still stands you won't lose any time due to any amendments. Did you ask what SIN stood for as this could be an indicator whether it constitues an additional charge or is a valid interest (doubt it). Just stick too your guns your doing great.;)

It was settlement interest (deducted in the letter - added on the loan and then told it was added and right to be added)

My letter to the FOS is here


I received my SAR from Firstplus and upon looking at the transactions I noted that I had paid an amount referred to as “SIN” for £1388.13 and queried this with them. I subsequently received a reply from them that this amount was settlement interest DEDUCTED at the point of settlement. This amount that they say was deducted from my account at settlement was actually added on. I then telephoned yourselves to ask what I should do, either send this into you or call Firstplus and you advised me to ring FIrstplus. I have today called them with regards to this and spoke to the person who wrote the letter and she says that she wrote the letter wrong and should of written added instead of deducted. I enclose copies herewith.

I told Firstplus that I had put a claim in with the FOS for the extortionate settlement figure I repaid to them and that maybe they had made a mistake. They said they had not and that my settlement was fair. I find this “unfair terms in consumer contract regulations” Contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers and I said that there was no way my settlement was capped like all unregulated lenders (as Firstplus were at this time in April 2003) were told to do by the OFT in 1997. Also they were also asked stop using this method at their earliest convenience, 6 years later and they still used this method. I was told by Firstplus that this rule of 78 was explained in my terms and conditions (a copy of which is enclosed) and that I knew about it. The only time I knew about this was at settlement. The OFT also asked that this should be written in plain intelligible English and this was not the case. The OFT asked that unregulated lenders should cease using this method and move to alternative methods of calculating the settlement figure but again Firstplus continued to use the rule 78. They said any charges for settlement should be REASONABLE and do no more than cover the lenders admin costs and any costs reasonably incurred to date and not already recovered. I find our settlement was clearly EXCESSIVE of this. I therefore would like you to look into my claim and would like a fair rebate for the amount I actually borrowed. I have NOW been sent out a clear document with the rule of 78 explained but was NOT sent one at the time I borrowed the money. The OFT asked that all unregulated lenders should send out clear documents. The document I have now received is dated in 2005 and before that they did not produce any documents. My loan was taken out in 2000 and settled in 2003.
According to the UTCCRs, a standard term must be expressed in plain and intelligible language. A term is open to challenge if it could put the consumer at a disadvantage because he or she is not clear about its meaning –( We was not told of the rule of 78 upon taking out the loan and it was not in my terms and conditions) even if its meaning could be worked out by a lawyer. If there is doubt as to what a term means, the meaning most favourable to the consumer will apply.

I have also received a copy of the terms from the PPI which was added to the loan by Firstplus at the time we took the loan out. This policy was a Firstplus own policy and called “Cashback” and we were told it was a condition of the loan. I have argued this so many times with Firstplus as we were not given a choice on taking this and that I find this negligent misrepresentation under the misrepresentation act 1967 on their behalf and wish to esculate this claim also. We should have been told we could buy this elsewhere or that it was optional and they failed in their “Duty of Disclosure” to us. We were not given a choice of having this insurance and not told we could buy elsewhere and we find the way it was sold to us to be liable under the misrepresentation act 1967. Also I note that this policy only ran for 5 years and not the term of the loan and was an upfront payment that we then paid interest on until the full term. Again this was an unfair contract. Firstplus were making huge profits from these policy’s and we feel we were sold this purely for Firstplus to make further profits from us and not for our “insurance” interest. (contracts of utmost goodfaith)

I truly hope that you can help me with my case as this put my family in hardship at the time and we are still experiencing hardship as result of this.



Does this sound ok to you. It was in addition to my actual complaint form being sent in

m.colak

marshallka wrote: »

It was settlement interest (deducted in the letter - added on the loan and then told it was added and right to be added)

My letter to the FOS is here


I received my SAR from Firstplus and upon looking at the transactions I noted that I had paid an amount referred to as “SIN” for £1388.13 and queried this with them. I subsequently received a reply from them that this amount was settlement interest DEDUCTED at the point of settlement. This amount that they say was deducted from my account at settlement was actually added on. I then telephoned yourselves to ask what I should do, either send this into you or call Firstplus and you advised me to ring FIrstplus. I have today called them with regards to this and spoke to the person who wrote the letter and she says that she wrote the letter wrong and should of written added instead of deducted. I enclose copies herewith.

I told Firstplus that I had put a claim in with the FOS for the extortionate settlement figure I repaid to them and that maybe they had made a mistake. They said they had not and that my settlement was fair. I find this “unfair terms in consumer contract regulations” Contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers and I said that there was no way my settlement was capped like all unregulated lenders (as Firstplus were at this time in April 2003) were told to do by the OFT in 1997. Also they were also asked stop using this method at their earliest convenience, 6 years later and they still used this method. I was told by Firstplus that this rule of 78 was explained in my terms and conditions (a copy of which is enclosed) and that I knew about it. The only time I knew about this was at settlement. The OFT also asked that this should be written in plain intelligible English and this was not the case. The OFT asked that unregulated lenders should cease using this method and move to alternative methods of calculating the settlement figure but again Firstplus continued to use the rule 78. They said any charges for settlement should be REASONABLE and do no more than cover the lenders admin costs and any costs reasonably incurred to date and not already recovered. I find our settlement was clearly EXCESSIVE of this. I therefore would like you to look into my claim and would like a fair rebate for the amount I actually borrowed. I have NOW been sent out a clear document with the rule of 78 explained but was NOT sent one at the time I borrowed the money. The OFT asked that all unregulated lenders should send out clear documents. The document I have now received is dated in 2005 and before that they did not produce any documents. My loan was taken out in 2000 and settled in 2003.
According to the UTCCRs, a standard term must be expressed in plain and intelligible language. A term is open to challenge if it could put the consumer at a disadvantage because he or she is not clear about its meaning –( We was not told of the rule of 78 upon taking out the loan and it was not in my terms and conditions) even if its meaning could be worked out by a lawyer. If there is doubt as to what a term means, the meaning most favourable to the consumer will apply.

I have also received a copy of the terms from the PPI which was added to the loan by Firstplus at the time we took the loan out. This policy was a Firstplus own policy and called “Cashback” and we were told it was a condition of the loan. I have argued this so many times with Firstplus as we were not given a choice on taking this and that I find this negligent misrepresentation under the misrepresentation act 1967 on their behalf and wish to esculate this claim also. We should have been told we could buy this elsewhere or that it was optional and they failed in their “Duty of Disclosure” to us. We were not given a choice of having this insurance and not told we could buy elsewhere and we find the way it was sold to us to be liable under the misrepresentation act 1967. Also I note that this policy only ran for 5 years and not the term of the loan and was an upfront payment that we then paid interest on until the full term. Again this was an unfair contract. Firstplus were making huge profits from these policy’s and we feel we were sold this purely for Firstplus to make further profits from us and not for our “insurance” interest. (contracts of utmost goodfaith)

I truly hope that you can help me with my case as this put my family in hardship at the time and we are still experiencing hardship as result of this.



Does this sound ok to you. It was in addition to my actual complaint form being sent in

I must admit reading that you must have been pretty angry the more and more you wrote. Am actually afraid now:eek: (God knows what Firstplus will do when then read that as i believe they made need to change their underpants). It is very good and puts your points across very well. Hopefully something will happen quickly.

marshallka

m.colak wrote: »

I must admit reading that you must have been pretty angry the more and more you wrote. Am actually afraid now:eek: (God knows what Firstplus will do when then read that as i believe they made need to change their underpants). It is very good and puts your points across very well. Hopefully something will happen quickly.

this was to the FOS about Firstplus. lol

alleybabes

m.colak wrote: »

Hi don't panic the next thing you will get is a hearing date for the appeal (thats what it is - nothing more). They will get a chance to state their case and why they should be allowed to get the judgement set aside and then you will have you say. Just remember if the judge lets it go back to court and again they don't file a defense then you can claim more interest until the case is settled. I will say one thing though make sure you get all the information about how you have been put out by having to attend court for the appeal's hearing (ie cost of travel, daily rate of pay etc and include the documentation whats substanuates the information) request that a side order is include reuest additional costs for having to attend the hearing. If the judge awards the stay then ask the judge if you can ask for additional information from the company, he should indicate you can under CPR 18. If not then i'm letting you know you can but in reality you want him to suggest it. Then start hitting the company for requests for information about the person whom sold you the product etc (as much as you can feasibly determine relates to your case including if only loosely). All i'm saying is keep your head up you will beat them in the end it will just take a little longer.

hi m colak thanks for the reply , its really getting to me as it must cost them more in solicitors fees than what they owe me! i will do what you say but im hoping the court wont allow it as they acknowledged the claim and then didnt reply after 28 days i will have to wait and see but thanks again you are a star!

m.colak

alleybabes wrote: »

hi m colak thanks for the reply , its really getting to me as it must cost them more in solicitors fees than what they owe me! i will do what you say but im hoping the court wont allow it as they acknowledged the claim and then didnt reply after 28 days i will have to wait and see but thanks again you are a star!

The one thing that everone should remember is that the companies want you too give in, as its in their best interest. So if they draw the process out, make you stressed so you make a mistake or just give in, then they win. Come on here get some MSE hugs then get back on the horse and kick the bad guys out of town. Thats what this site is for. If you want to have a vent then just do it. Don't bottle it up as it isn't worth make yourself ill or worse. Remember its your money not theirs and keep telling yourself this and you will succed i guarentee it.

Kaia_2

Thanks for giving us the constant moral support mcolak it does help!
I am still waiting for a defence to be put in.....4 more days to go....for deadline......and still waiting for SAR (still got another 20 days or so)
What should I be doing at this stage now...as if i am preparing to actually go to court? Anything.....or just sit back and wait?

Marshallka....I agree...... brill letter !

m.colak

Kaia wrote: »

Thanks for giving us the constant moral support mcolak it does help!
I am still waiting for a defence to be put in.....4 more days to go....for deadline......and still waiting for SAR (still got another 20 days or so)
What should I be doing at this stage now...as if i am preparing to actually go to court? Anything.....or just sit back and wait?

Marshallka....I agree...... brill letter !

ok first of all is that 4 days to the 14 day deadline or is it too 21 days as i have said make sure that you give them an additional 7 days to hang themselves as they will have no ability to attempt to get the judgement set aside if you allow them that little extra. It also saves the two months of waiting i've experienced (appeals hearing / new defence / no defence back to judge /now awaiting new judgement ).

If the SAR is in relation to the current case put it on the back burner and worry about it a little later. If it doesn't relate to the same case then there is nothing stopping you sending a little reminder (especially if they haven't aknowledged the SAR).

I would start getting you paperwork together as if they do file a defense you have to ensure you have all the relevant paperwork (quotes from act etc.) together and then make three copies, including a statement of fact. This you then send to the company and the court so you are ready in all respects for the case. Never presume they won't do anything else you will be finding yourself working to a deadline and stressing yourself out.

As for the moral support i do try:o