PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

m.colak

marshallka wrote: »

For anyone with a claim against Firstplus read this about their parent company in dallas
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080513_Search_may_lead_to_gun_charges_against_Scarfo.html

Don't know if i dare cause trouble now:eek:

Hi marshallka how are coming along with your claim?

m.colak

Laini wrote: »

only if you want to mcolak I am happy with what you have done but please feel free
wait to see how I worked it out
Dont laugh at my workings out
I did my blonde sum of
17146 - 3949 + 1800 = 14997 + 8% = 16196.76
PPI -REBATE+PAYMENTS=TOTAL +INTEREST

I could be an accountant eh!!
Laini xxx

I've sent you the sheet hopefully you can see the workings am sorry if it is a little confusing (did put titles on to help a little).

sarahc5388

sarahc5388 wrote: »

Wow, thanks, that's much more betterer than mine - cut and pasted and send has been hit! If I ever meet you I owe you a rather large beer, will let you know of any response! Also had a letter re my PPI claim, they are investigating and I will have an update or an answer as soon as possible but no later than 9 jun 08, so the count down has begun, will let you all know what they say.

Had another letter today re my PPI, 'We remain committed to resolving your complaint as quickly as we can and will contact you again by 7 July 2008'. That letter will probably just fob me off - but not letting go of it cos they is winding me right up! Keep up the good work everyone and don't let the barstewards get you down

Laini

Laini wrote: »

only if you want to mcolak I am happy with what you have done but please feel free
wait to see how I worked it out
Dont laugh at my workings out
I did my blonde sum of
17146 - 3949 + 1800 = 14997 + 8% = 16196.76
PPI -REBATE+PAYMENTS=TOTAL +INTEREST

I could be an accountant eh!!
Laini xxx

received exel sheet
thanks
Laini

Laini

m.colak wrote: »

I've sent you the sheet hopefully you can see the workings am sorry if it is a little confusing (did put titles on to help a little).

I can understand it but might ask you to have a look at the one I will try to do myself for Nemo figure
TTFN
Laini xx:j:j:j:wave:

m.colak

Laini wrote: »

I can understand it but might ask you to have a look at the one I will try to do myself for Nemo figure
TTFN
Laini xx:j:j:j:wave:

No probs am here until wednesday next week. Then i have about 2.5 weeks off when i won't be on as much. Then will have to arrange another internet connection then will be on in the evenings.:D

skb***

m.colak wrote: »

skb*** wrote: »

WELCOME FINANCE
Oct 2007 Single Premium of £3178.54
Don't think I can reclaim as mis-sold - this is one I have not entered into yet. They will have tapes of it and I feel even though they do not actually say that YOU HAVE TO HAVE - you fell pressured to take it because you are sooo desperate to get the loan? Who actually reads all the small print when you receive the forms with a big fat SIGN ME sticker where you have to sign?? I will be totally honest that even though I am not stupid, but my husband would not allow himself to be out of work for more than a few weeks (he would sweep the streets if nec.) or we would go to family if mortgage or secured loans could not be paid rather than wait the sometimes three months before you make a claim ALSO I truely have never had any idea that when you buy a single premium it only lasts for a maximum of 5 years? However, with WELCOME they did mention to me about a cashback but am sure they never said anything else or was I just not listening. Surely ALL lenders should make sure you have listened and read everything - in all honestly WHO DOES?
Anyway - I was going to obviously cancel this one - looked up and can do and will get back £2030 approx. But surely this is unfair - has cost over £1000 for just 10 months THIS IS ALL SO UNFAIR...
So on this one was just going to cancel and at least get this amount back? Any other suggestions??

On this one i'm guessing you went into an office to sign this therefore the rules on correspondence selling are out the window unless they never explained PPI to you in the office and instead relied on information via post. Check on OFT website for information pertaining to long distance PPI sales. If you don't require it then by all means cancel it. Remember you will only be able to reclaim the PPI & Interest elements that you have already paid unless you can prove its a front-loaded policy (this is if the loan is still running otherwise you may be looking at more)

Woooh thank so much for all the info - little bit confused - this one was done all over the phone!!! I have never heard of long distance ppi sales issues etc - will look up now - this would relate to ALL of them!! What do you mean by a front loaded policy?

NEMO September 2006 Single Premium £3823.88
Via CENTRAL CAPITAL
Wrote to them about mis-selling specifically about the 5 year maximum etc (this one is still running!!) Looked into the cancellation - what a joke a mere £500 approx would be paid back onto the loan ONLY 13% - HOW UNFAIR IS THAT
Reply received from Central Capital - they listened to the calls
I did point out in original letter that surely it is unfair in itself that only my husband is on the insurance (I am a housewife) as we are both liable if not paid etc (as per Martin!!) Obviously I was ineligble for any cover as not working but why couldn't have I been covered for life etc - doesn't make sense.
They also said in their letter We verbally informed you of numerous elements of the insurance good and bad - it is neither practical nor a regulatory requirement to go through all terms and conditions relating to the insurance. I think I am flogging a dead horse here because they have the tapes and I know that we were desperate for this at the time and probably just said yes yes yes and did not listen properly I CAN HONESTLY SAY that I am not stupid and used to actually work in insurance of a similar nature (20 yrs ago) but have never ever had a clue about the single premium only lasting a max of 5 years and the fact that you are paying interest over the whole term!!!

Have you got copies of these tapes or are you taking their word for it. Request the tapes and listen to the conservation yourself before you take any further action. Again this will come under the regulations for distance selling so it might be worth further investigation.

Again, I need to read up on long distance sales etc. I don't have the tapes only their word so will request.

GE MONEY HOME LENDING Single Premium £3825.00 Purchased Feb 2005 REDEEMED loan JUNE 2006 SO ONY HAD FOR 16 MONTHS MAX
via Blue Sky Finance AGAIN JUST FOR MY HUSBAND AS HOUSEWIFE
Have written to GE who advised to write to Blue Sky - did and not heard - just chased again ALL RE MIS-SELLING
HOWEVER - it is only now that you look and understand how ripped off you can be - surely when you redeem a loan which has PPI linked to it - only ran for 16 months out of the 5 years - I should have been refunded the difference??? Any advice here please.

Ok stop credit consumer act 1967 ch 9 article 15 states that GE Money are responsible as the brokered the deal relating to PPI and i would write back to them quoting this. As you redeemed it might be worth looking into whether you settlement was disproportional or not.

I spoke to a lady at GE about this one and that was never mentioned so should write back and also start asking all of them when necessary about the settlement being disproportional or not - and I need to understand that myself!

IGROUP via LOANS.CO.UK £630.00 Approx June 2004 Was just for life cover for my husband Redeemed within a year!!!!
Wrote to these guys especially AS THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN FINED
No go - letter states as usual - you were offered the insurance, documents sent out for you to READ and CONSIDER before signing!! You had the opportuity to read properly etc etc - is this just normal spiel or do I not have a leg to stand on? May be able to get a partial refund but not them - go back to the lender - closing the case etc!! Go to ombusman - which is my next step but just want to get all the wording correct and go with the best issue etc.

You might want to look at the wording of the terms and conditions and see if the are in lay man speak and not is anyway confusing. Again distance selling regulations apply.

GE MONEY AGAIN / FIRST NATIONAL Bought April 2000 but redeemed WITHIN 2 YEARS NEED TO CHECK EXACT DATE £3336.00 SINGLE PREMIUM ETC

Sent usual mis-selling letter - advised on phone NO GO!!! Still awaiting letter as to why?

WHY ARE WE NOT ISSUED WITH A REFUND ON REDEMPTION - HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW???

Ok non refund's and rebates are classed as unfair terms and conditions are both covered on the OFT and FOS websites so i would hit them with this especially as the ruling was retrospective.

OMG! I never knew this either - so if I didn't receive a refund or rebate on redemption this is classed as unfair??

This is an interesting one!!!
GE MONEY AGAIN - IGROUP - via Purple Loans!!!! Now all under the same umbrella etc etc etc
Took out AUG 2001 Single Premium £3453.00 Redeemed JAN 2003
When I dug all the paperwork out
SIGNED CREDIT AGREEMENT IT HAS BEEN TICKED NONE UNDER COVER FOR PPI
IN THE LOAN CONFIRMTION IT SHOWS MIDLAND & GENERAL CREDIT INSURANCE £3543.97
So got very excited to see what an obvious mistake this was and asked for it ALL back with interest.
They came back saying that we (my husband) had signed a seperate PPI form. Funny though that I do keep all paperwork but never had a copy - which they have sent me telling me to try and claim from Lloyds of London via Wessex etc for a partial refund as redeemed early etc etc. One of those with a big fat SIGN ME sticker on!!! Also - they already completed the form which included the ticks in the boxes which unfortunately states POLICY IS NON-CANCELLABLE TICKED THAT HE WAS AWARE - but they did not him and you just sign everything where they put the sticker?
But looking again - was this ever really explained and were they ever sure WE UNDERSTOOD (although isn't this also a general issue - why didn't any of them ever make sure WE UNDERSTOOD!!!)
Because on the CREDIT AGREEMENT - it is ticked NO COVER but the amount has obviously been added to the ADVANCE AMOUNT?? Isn't this misleading??
Any suggestions??? GE Money said we should write to Lloyds/Wessex to ask for a refund as loan redeemed early - but what is that about NON-CANCELLABLE Surely, if you redeem why would anyone pay for an insurance on something that is no longer there to cover THAT IS REALLY NOT FAIR! Even if paid up front as a single premium.... ANY SUGGESTIONS?

ALSO ALL THOSE WITH GE/IGROUP/PURPLE/FIRST NATIONAL AND MIDLAND & GENERAL THAT THEY KEEP ALSO QUOTING ETC ETC ETC - I WROTE SEPERATE LETTERS ABOUT EACH ONE BUT AT ONE STAGE THEY GOT CONFUSED WITH EACH ACCOUNT AND I HAD TO SPEAK TO THEM AND HELP THE LADY CONFIRM WHICH WAS WHICH AS NOW ALL UNDER GE MONEY UMBRELLA!!!!

Ok stop stop stop. Make sure for all these policies you get a SAR post #219 (Laini;) ). This should contain all the pertinant information and if you are missing any or have no joy in obtaining any of it then contact the information commisioner and get him directly involved.

Sorry if sound dumb - waht is a SAR post??

ALSO - IF A POLICY IS SOLD TO YOU ON A NON-ADVISORY BASIS - WHERE DO YOU STAND WITH THAT???

There is no such thing. If a company advise's or sale a policy to you they become responsible for all negligencies involved. At the end of the day they brokered the deal and nobody else and therefore and liable.

I have a letter from GE Money saying sold to me on a Non Advisory Basis - so I can go back and hit them there???

AND O THE SINGLE PREMIUM VARIETY - THIS DOES MEAN THAT YOU PAY INTEREST ON IT FOR THE WHOLE TERM OF THE LOAN EVEN WHEN INSURANCE RUNS OUT - WHERE IS THAT FIAR OR WHEN IS IT EXPLAINED??

Single premium policy means that the interest is worked out in advanced on both the PPI and loan and added to the loan at the start so as the payments can be equally divided over time.

So on all those that redeemed early - I need to check what the final settlements figures where and how they were calculated right??

Anyway - any help and advice would be really appreciated - do I go ahead with them as I have noted or am I just so unlucky....

And what is the correct procedure for when you redeem a loan with a single premium on - shouldn't you get a refund and if I go for that with them all - a partial refund - will they all be at some sily amount of 13% ARRRGHHHH

Again covered by the FOS and OFT on refunds and rebates policy.

I need to read up on refunds and rebates policies???

m.colak

skb*** wrote: »

m.colak wrote: »

I need to read up on refunds and rebates policies???

A SAR (honestly look at post #219) is a request which asks the company for all information pertaining to the policies/loan this includes tapes etc. It costs a £10 however is well worth it when you might be claiming back £1000's. Its quite easy on the disproportional rebate:

example:

you borrowed £10000 PPI was £25000
You paid 24 payments of £250 equalling £6000
then attempt to settle the loan finding that you have to pay £9500

That means you've paid £6000 to pay off effectively £500 off the loan. I know i have really over simplified the process but when you take out PPI (if mis sold) then the rebate could be a lot bigger it just means people need to take a look at the figures and look properly rather then pay blindly.

marshallka

m.colak wrote: »

Hi marshallka how are coming along with your claim?

nothing new accept learning from the internet and this is what i have learnt.

Regulated agreement are actually agreements under 25K covered by the CCA. Unregulated agreement are loans over 25K that were not covered by the CCA.

In the statements made by the office of fair trading november 1997 paper re Non status lending, non status actually means loans taken out by people that otherwise could not have got finance by a normal high street lender or someone that was having credit problems. Sub prime lenders are lenders such as Firstplus that offer loans that other high street banks would not offer and this is such like 125% of the equity in your home (actually is there any such thing as 125% ) and then secure them to your home.

Rule 78 was asked not to be used in UNREGULATED agreements but it could still they could still apply to regulated agreement insofar as the statutory regime does not apply. (have yet to define that one... )

I have found out that Firstplus their sister company in dallas were prohibited by the Federal Trade Commission, Washington for the following reasons

The commission issued a final decision and order against Firstplus Financial Group Inc resolving charges against this equity's now bankrupt subsidiary Firstplus Financial INc (Firstplus"), in connection with advertising for dect consolidation loans, including high "loan to value" financing. In this case the commissioners first regarding misrepresentation about HLTV loans. The complaint charged that the adverts were false and misleading bacause they misrepresented the amount of money consumers would save and failed to adequately disclose material loan information, in violation f the FTC act. The complaint alleged that the examples shown in the Firstplus advert failed to accurately illustrate the potential money savings and misrepresented that each recipient of the solicitation who applied for the loan advertised would receive such a loan. In addition the complaint alleged firstplus advertisements claimed that consumers would receive funds for the full loan amount stated in the ad when consumers did not because firstplus deducted substantial orgination fees and closing costs (eg. 10.43%) from the disbursed funds. The complaint also alleged that firstplus ran deceptive credit promotions by failing to disclose ADEQUATELY certain material credit terms, in violation of the FTC act and failed to disclose clearly and conspicuously required credit information, in violation of the TILA and regulation z. Under the order, Firstplus is prohibited from misrepresenting and saving and benefits or consolidating credit card balances and other loans into a firstplus loan, the amount of the loan proceeds disbursed to consumers, the dollar value of the cost savings benefits of the firstplus loan. The order also prohibits Firstplus from using any example of cost saving or benefits of a Firstplus loan compared to other consumer credit transactions unless the exampe is based on reasonable assumptions regarding average APRs and repayment terms from comparable credit transactions. The order also prohibits respondent from stating various credit terms without disclosing clearly and conspicuously all terms required by TILA and Regulation Z

Oh how i wish now that these were put in place in our country before we got to see that bloody advert.:mad: These are my arguments here. Some things here resemble my complaint with the fos

m.colak

marshallka wrote: »

nothing new accept learning from the internet and this is what i have learnt.

Regulated agreement are actually agreements under 25K covered by the CCA. Unregulated agreement are loans over 25K that were not covered by the CCA.

In the statements made by the office of fair trading november 1997 paper re Non status lending, non status actually means loans taken out by people that otherwise could not have got finance by a normal high street lender or someone that was having credit problems. Sub prime lenders are lenders such as Firstplus that offer loans that other high street banks would not offer and this is such like 125% of the equity in your home (actually is there any such thing as 125% ) and then secure them to your home.

Rule 78 was asked not to be used in UNREGULATED agreements but it could still they could still apply to regulated agreement insofar as the statutory regime does not apply. (have yet to define that one... )

I have found out that Firstplus their sister company in dallas were prohibited by the Federal Trade Commission, Washington for the following reasons

The commission issued a final decision and order against Firstplus Financial Group Inc resolving charges against this equity's now bankrupt subsidiary Firstplus Financial INc (Firstplus"), in connection with advertising for dect consolidation loans, including high "loan to value" financing. In this case the commissioners first regarding misrepresentation about HLTV loans. The complaint charged that the adverts were false and misleading bacause they misrepresented the amount of money consumers would save and failed to adequately disclose material loan information, in violation f the FTC act. The complaint alleged that the examples shown in the Firstplus advert failed to accurately illustrate the potential money savings and misrepresented that each recipient of the solicitation who applied for the loan advertised would receive such a loan. In addition the complaint alleged firstplus advertisements claimed that consumers would receive funds for the full loan amount stated in the ad when consumers did not because firstplus deducted substantial orgination fees and closing costs (eg. 10.43%) from the disbursed funds. The complaint also alleged that firstplus ran deceptive credit promotions by failing to disclose ADEQUATELY certain material credit terms, in violation of the FTC act and failed to disclose clearly and conspicuously required credit information, in violation of the TILA and regulation z. Under the order, Firstplus is prohibited from misrepresenting and saving and benefits or consolidating credit card balances and other loans into a firstplus loan, the amount of the loan proceeds disbursed to consumers, the dollar value of the cost savings benefits of the firstplus loan. The order also prohibits Firstplus from using any example of cost saving or benefits of a Firstplus loan compared to other consumer credit transactions unless the exampe is based on reasonable assumptions regarding average APRs and repayment terms from comparable credit transactions. The order also prohibits respondent from stating various credit terms without disclosing clearly and conspicuously all terms required by TILA and Regulation Z

Oh how i wish now that these were put in place in our country before we got to see that bloody advert.:mad: These are my arguments here.

So like me you have learnt alot already. It is amazing that the government allows these sharks to operate in this country but keep trucking and it will come honestly. Is there anything i can help with or are you ok at the moment?