PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

m.colak

marshallka wrote: »

Mine was the awkward case. It was sold by Freedom Finance (so i am told by Worstplus). Freedom Finance were selling it for Bespoke Finance who are based in Gibraltar and have no regulations to follow. (yeah right). I received my SAR from Firstplus that had no real evidence of the sale being with Freedom. I even (in my paranoid mind) think that maybe Freedom did not sell this as my terms and conditions of the policy have been sent out and its a Firstplus own policy called "cashback". I have no details of the actual policy as Firstplus say they did not sell it and Freedom Finance have yet to answer my SAR. The policy is underwritten by 3 companies
40% AA Cassidy 35% Syndicate 582 at LLoyds and 25% Zurich.
So i have yet to find out who sold the policy. I am asking the FOS to help if they can in that one. I have written it in my complaint. (I doubt i will ever know)

Also i doubt i will have any claim as this was in Jan 2000 and the Markets Act thing is June 2000 i think. I did ask Freedom for the training thing and they told me that they did not have to disclose such information as they were not regulated and did not need to be. They said Firstplus were ok with it so that it was ok

Ok lets get back to basics... Who brokered the loan ie who did you contact originally relating to the loan? These are the company whom SOLD you the PPI (or if you want to be technical brokered the loan) it is these guys that you will attempt to reclaim from as its them whom advised/sold you the PPI policy as well.

Consumer Credit Act 1974
http://www.itra.net/adjuntos/Consumer%20Creedit%20oft303.pdf

1.5 Section 75 of the Act provides that the credit grantor is equally responsible with the supplier for any
breach of contract or misrepresentation if all of the following four conditions are met.

(read the whole section and call me a liar)

marshallka

m colak, sorry to bother you again but just found this in a letter from Firstplus and it states when i made my complaint to them over the rule of 78 that

In response to the information contained in the OFT Non status lending document, our lending is NOT non status so the guidelines do not apply. Non-status loans are loans that would not be available throught the high street bank. We are owned by a high street bank. We cap the rule of 78 at 10 years to mitigate against the effect.

Does this now mean because when i took the loan out no-one had to be regulated so i have no claim and when i settled (if barclays took them over in November 2000) i have no claim over the use of the rule of 78 either. This is getting worse. Can they use the barclays thing without informing us that barclays took them over.

Robbed?

Hello there. I need help ASAP please- I have a claim with Natwest and have sent the first and second letters- my trouble is they still haven't replied- what next??? I know Martin says complain to the FOS but I am a little concerned at the length of time this takes, I really need it sorting ASAP.

What do you lot think?

Stacey x

Robbed? wrote: »

Hi all- I've been *lurking* round this site for the past few months and have put in the first letter to Natwest to claim PPI (they have until Tue to reply:eek: )! Does anyone know how I work out the total amount owed- the loan was originally started in 2002 and has been renewed 9 times_pale_ !!

Original Loan- 18/03/02
Amount Borrowed- £1000
Interest Charged for Credit- £226.48
PPI- £124.00
Total- £1350
Mthly Payt- £56.27
Term- 24mth
Annual Rate- 19.90%

Renewed- 26/09/02
Amount Borrowed- £3000
Interest Charged for Credit- £800.04
PPI- £480.00
Total- £4280.04
Mthly Payt- £118.89
Term- 36mth
Annual Rate- 14.90%

Renewed- 11/02/03
Amount Borrowed- £4000
Interest Charged for Credit- £1067.24
PPI- £651.00
Total- £5718.24
Mthly Payt- £158.84
Term- 36mth
Annual Rate- 8.2%

Renewed- 21/03/03
Amount Borrowed- £5500
Interest Charged for Credit- £1648.08
PPI- £1094.00
Total- £8242.08
Mthly Payt- £171.71
Term- 48mths
Interest Rate- 6.8%

Renewed- 16/09/03
Amount Borrowed- £5400
Interest Charge for Credit- £1748.60
PPI- £1327.00
Total- £8475.60
Mthly Payt- £141.26
Term- 60mth
Interest Rate- 6.8%

Renewed- 24/02/04
Amount Borrowed- £8100
Interest Charge for Credit- £2649.60
PPI- £2091.00
Total- £12840.60
Mthly Payt- £214.01
Term- 60mth
Interest Rate- 5.75%

Renewed- 08/06/05
Amount Borrowed- £8300
Interest Charged for Credit- £1849.52
PPI- £1646.00
Total- £11795.52
Mthly Payt- £245.74
Term- 48mth
Interest Rate- 5.2%

Renewed- 28/11/05
Amount Borrowed- £9300
Interest Charged for Credit- £1793.36
PPI- £1720.00
Total- £12813.36
Mthly Payt- £305.08
Term- 42mth
Interest Rate- 5.2%

Renewed- 02/07/06
Amount Borrowed- £10000
Interest Charged for Credit- £2606.80
PPI- £2596.00
Total- £15202.80
Mthly Payt- £253.38
Term- 60mth
Interest Rate- 4.65%


As you can see when the last loan was negotiated it put me over 15k in debt :embarasse - could someone please help me calculate a ball park figure I am reclaiming.

Thanks in advance

m.colak

marshallka wrote: »

m colak, sorry to bother you again but just found this in a letter from Firstplus and it states when i made my complaint to them over the rule of 78 that

In response to the information contained in the OFT Non status lending document, our lending is NOT non status so the guidelines do not apply. Non-status loans are loans that would not be available throught the high street bank. We are owned by a high street bank. We cap the rule of 78 at 10 years to mitigate against the effect.

Does this now mean because when i took the loan out no-one had to be regulated so i have no claim and when i settled (if barclays took them over in November 2000) i have no claim over the use of the rule of 78 either. This is getting worse. Can they use the barclays thing without informing us that barclays took them over.

Ok me looking at this says its another smoke screen. Ask yourself how would you benefit if your loan had less than 10 years to run again it's a case a unfair terms and conditions and I would let FOS investigate it fully before worrying about it one way or another. As for the regulations they are more stringant for independant unregulated companies then big banks. But then again the banks then become under certain regulations for codes of practice etc. Honestly I think they are trying to make you give up just keep patient it will come.

marshallka

m.colak wrote: »

Ok lets get back to basics... Who brokered the loan ie who did you contact originally relating to the loan? These are the company whom SOLD you the PPI (or if you want to be technical brokered the loan) it is these guys that you will attempt to reclaim from as its them whom advised/sold you the PPI policy as well.

Consumer Credit Act 1974
http://www.itra.net/adjuntos/Consumer%20Creedit%20oft303.pdf

1.5 Section 75 of the Act provides that the credit grantor is equally responsible with the supplier for any
breach of contract or misrepresentation if all of the following four conditions are met.

(read the whole section and call me a liar)

I am jubious as whether they answer my SAR request as this was taken out over 6 years ago although they have answered my request for one asking us for photo id and home address id i think they will respond with "have not details". I sent that to them about two weeks ago and now am waiting for a response.

m.colak

marshallka wrote: »

I am jubious as whether they answer my SAR request as this was taken out over 6 years ago although they have answered my request for one asking us for photo id and home address id i think they will respond with "have not details". I sent that to them about two weeks ago and now am waiting for a response.

Don't worry about how long ago the paperwork was completed as it comes under the guidelines of length of time paperwork should be held in relation to accounts which funny enough is 6 years minimum. Sorry i should have said completed transactional accounts.

m.colak

Robbed? wrote: »

Hello there. I need help ASAP please- I have a claim with Natwest and have sent the first and second letters- my trouble is they still haven't replied- what next??? I know Martin says complain to the FOS but I am a little concerned at the length of time this takes, I really need it sorting ASAP.

What do you lot think?

Stacey x

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: only joking

Ok from this information its a bit hard to determine on what rebates you received when you refinanced each time. I mean worse case is that you have been charged another lot of PPI each time you refinanced. I would send all the relevant information pertaining to case including all the information relating to the refinancing to the FOS letting them know that you are in deep financial straights and believe that you have been disproportionally rebated from the start (Providing your situation is very bad (I sorry i don't know so don't want to judge) they should fast track your case and in some case's it can be sorted faster than a court case).

marshallka

what does "non status lenders" actually mean.

m.colak

marshallka wrote: »

what does "non status lenders" actually mean.

I'm guessing it means independant financial companies whom are not regulated by either being a member of a financial governing body or not part of a larger umbrella group such as barclay's (whom would come under a different set of regulations then those smaller companies who would group together under another financial regulatory body).

marshallka

m.colak wrote: »

I'm guessing it means independant financial companies whom are not regulated by either being a member of a financial governing body or not part of a larger umbrella group such as barclay's (whom would come under a different set of regulations then those smaller companies who would group together under another financial regulatory body).

i have sent all my complaint to the FOS with regard to "non status lenders" as i did with Fistplus as i felt the same as you, that they were not regulated. I have just rang the OFT and asked them again when firstplus was regulated and she said they were regualted by them in 2005 to sell insurance and that she had no idea what i meant by "non status lenders". I am now totally confused as i thought all my information i had sent to the FOS about the OFT asking "non status lenders to stop using the rule 78" was correct and that Firstplus was non status meaning not regulated. This is doing my head in. (they were part of barclays in nov 2000 so which are they, status or non status)

God what a fool i have made of myself now. I have just looked at the thing about non status lending and it is about borrowing money to people that have no credit history or have an impaired credit rating. Its nothing about the status of the lender i don't think. I think it means if you could get a bank loan or not but then again no bank would of lent us the money (or lots of others like us) and secure it to our property otherwise we would of got it on our mortgage. I will just have to wait and see.