PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

Laini

marshallka wrote: »

Morning all, Its Kaia's big day today and Marluc too. Can't wait to here what the solicitors have to say.:D

Had a look last night and the 3 of you have had a whale of a time on here you got me totally confused so thought best to keep out of it.
did any of you get away from the pc to catch some rays or even eat.:rolleyes:

update still no news from FP- just incase you were wondering.:mad:

Laini:j

Laini

marshallka wrote: »

Morning all, Its Kaia's big day today and Marluc too. Can't wait to here what the solicitors have to say.:D

fingers crossed for both of them

Laini:j:money::money:

m.colak

Laini wrote: »

Had a look last night and the 3 of you have had a whale of a time on here you got me totally confused so thought best to keep out of it.
did any of you get away from the pc to catch some rays or even eat.:rolleyes:

update still no news from FP- just incase you were wondering.:mad:

Laini:j

Yes thank you had plenty to eat.:D Didn't bother with the sun as am on holiday from wednesday for 2.5 weeks and will doing the garden.

Laini

Laini wrote: »

Hi Claire
I will draft a letter on it for you
Please give me a day or so and I will post it up for everyone to see and comment and add bits on before you send it.
speak to you soon
Laini xx:j

M.colak
please could you have a look and see what you think and everyone else any comments welcome no offense will be taken.
Laini xx

X

X

X

X

.08

FIRST PLUS
The Avenue Business Park
Pentwyn
Cardiff
CF23 8FF

Dear,

Re: Account number: ref

I am writing with regards to this policy being mis sold and also the rebate given on the early settlement I still believe this to be an unfair rebate.

This is due to :-

I did not fully understand the policy and how it was funded at the point of sale and, whilst I accept that reference to the cost of the policy was made on the loan agreement, this was not clearly set out, which meant that I was unlikely to fully appreciate how the policy was funded.

The policy was a five year plan funded by a premium loan added to the twenty five year borrowing. If the complainants had kept the policy in place, I would have paid interest against the PPI loan for the twenty five year term although I would only have enjoyed cover for twenty percent of that time. If I wanted further cover, I would have had to take out and pay for a further policy whilst still paying for the original PPI. These implications do not appear to have been put to me during the sale

In addition, Firstplus did not appear to have drawn my attention specifically to the restrictive cancellation condition in the policy.

Therefore, I am persuaded that the policy was not adequately explained to me at point of sale – in other words, I was not sufficiently aware of the cost or the implications of having a single premium policy to make an informed choice at that time.


Non-status lending guidelines for lenders and brokers revised November 1997
I directly quote: "any ancillary charges (for example, on default or early settlement) should be brought to the attention of the borrower before the agreement is entered into and should reflect as closely as possible the costs reasonably incurred by the lender and not already recovered at the time when the charges are made."
I believe that you/the company were in direct violation of this guideline and the rebate does not reflect the possible costs incurred

Again I also back up my belief that the rebate is unfair with the unfair rebate terms. The Financial Services Authority has stated partial refund terms to be unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. They state that refunds should be ‘calculated fairly’ after taking into account ‘justifiable costs’. Therefore I do not believe the rebate given was fair.

£xxxx added to the loan as a single premium payment, interest was being paid on top of this value and a number of monthly payments being made on top of this, a rebate given of £xxxx does certainly not seem fair as it is disproportionate in accordance with the FSA ruling on disproportionate rebates.
We believe that the single premium policy sold to us essentially induced us as 'a reasonable people' to borrow more money, rather than simply pay a monthly fee for insurance. We also believe that it should have been made clear to us the said policy generated huge profits for First Plus at our expense. You failed to do so and in have failed in your "Duty of Disclosure" to us. As insurance contracts are basically Contracts Uberrimae Fidei (contracts of utmost good faith) which imposes a duty of disclosure of all material facts because one party, First Plus in this case, is in a strong position to know the truth. Your failure to disclose these facts to us is Negligent Misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and as such under case law, the onus us upon you to prove otherwise.

If I do not receive a letter from you offering a satisfactory settlement or a final response within 14 days I shall be taking my complaint to the Financial Ombudsman.

regards

marshallka

Laini wrote: »

M.colak
please could you have a look and see what you think and everyone else any comments welcome no offense will be taken.
Laini xx

X

X

X

X

.08

FIRST PLUS
The Avenue Business Park
Pentwyn
Cardiff
CF23 8FF

Dear,

Re: Account number: ref

I am writing with regards to this policy being mis sold and also the rebate given on the early settlement I still believe this to be an unfair rebate.

This is due to :-

I did not fully understand the policy and how it was funded at the point of sale and, whilst I accept that reference to the cost of the policy was made on the loan agreement, this was not clearly set out, which meant that I was unlikely to fully appreciate how the policy was funded.

The policy was a five year plan funded by a premium loan added to the twenty five year borrowing. If the complainants had kept the policy in place, I would have paid interest against the PPI loan for the twenty five year term although I would only have enjoyed cover for twenty percent of that time. If I wanted further cover, I would have had to take out and pay for a further policy whilst still paying for the original PPI. These implications do not appear to have been put to me during the sale

In addition, Firstplus did not appear to have drawn my attention specifically to the restrictive cancellation condition in the policy.

Therefore, I am persuaded that the policy was not adequately explained to me at point of sale – in other words, I was not sufficiently aware of the cost or the implications of having a single premium policy to make an informed choice at that time.


Non-status lending guidelines for lenders and brokers revised November 1997
I directly quote: "any ancillary charges (for example, on default or early settlement) should be brought to the attention of the borrower before the agreement is entered into and should reflect as closely as possible the costs reasonably incurred by the lender and not already recovered at the time when the charges are made."
I believe that you/the company were in direct violation of this guideline and the rebate does not reflect the possible costs incurred

Again I also back up my belief that the rebate is unfair with the unfair rebate terms. The Financial Services Authority has stated partial refund terms to be unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. They state that refunds should be ‘calculated fairly’ after taking into account ‘justifiable costs’. Therefore I do not believe the rebate given was fair.

£xxxx added to the loan as a single premium payment, interest was being paid on top of this value and a number of monthly payments being made on top of this, a rebate given of £xxxx does certainly not seem fair as it is disproportionate in accordance with the FSA ruling on disproportionate rebates.
We believe that the single premium policy sold to us essentially induced us as 'a reasonable people' to borrow more money, rather than simply pay a monthly fee for insurance. We also believe that it should have been made clear to us the said policy generated huge profits for First Plus at our expense. You failed to do so and in have failed in your "Duty of Disclosure" to us. As insurance contracts are basically Contracts Uberrimae Fidei (contracts of utmost good faith) which imposes a duty of disclosure of all material facts because one party, First Plus in this case, is in a strong position to know the truth. Your failure to disclose these facts to us is Negligent Misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and as such under case law, the onus us upon you to prove otherwise.

If I do not receive a letter from you offering a satisfactory settlement or a final response within 14 days I shall be taking my complaint to the Financial Ombudsman.

regards

I wish i could send that to them for mine. Its very good laini. I just need to know for definate who sold mine and I have yet to have proof of this. I might just send it as well. (LOL)


Laini was claires ppi claim with Firstplus or with someone else. ????????

NiiMantse

Thanks. M.Colak. Its a lot to trawl thru but will do my best. Thanks. U are a star.

marluc

m.colak wrote: »

oh didn't realise good luck Kaia and Marluc (I thought they had hearings?)

Hi everyone!!
Just about to set off for a hospital appointment and thought would chek emails.
many many thanks for your kind words and thoughts.
Kaia is waiting for a phone call from solicitor's today re: accepting the offer from Freedom Finance.
I may also get a phone call to see if I am accepting £3200 he offered on Friday - more than £1100 less than I am asking for.
But today, I should be receiving all documentation that FF are going to rely on in Court. This documentation should be at the court today as well.
So, I won't know if Mr Postman has left me a present or not. I won't know till after 6pm - as I have a meeting after work.
I'll be in touch as soon as I know anything and I'm sure Kaia will too.
Bye for now

Laini

marshallka wrote: »

I wish i could send that to them for mine. Its very good laini. I just need to know for definate who sold mine and I have yet to have proof of this. I might just send it as well. (LOL)


Laini was claires ppi claim with Firstplus or with someone else. ????????

it is another company but left FP s address on by mistake
just trying to make a more detailed template for everyone to use with the same complaint.

your case is totally confusing I would see what the FOS comes up with

Laini xx:j

Kaia_2

Hi all,
Thanks for all the messages of support x x x:D
Goodluck to you Marluc too x

No phone call as yet, but been on the phone all morning myself so dont know if theyve tried ringing me, checked but no answerphone messages anyway.
They were applying for a 7 day extention to sort things out with me, but what I hadn't told them was that I am away from Wednesday for a week, so thinking about it now, they may drag on for another week.
Should I phone them and explain that I am away from Wednesday and need to sort things out by tomorrow at the latest?
Does anyone know if they can apply for a further 7 days, to make it 14, so I dont have to make a decision before going away and can relax without having to think about it till I come back?
Or is it that if they apply for an extention, thats it, no more time allowed?

Kaia_2

marshallka wrote: »

I thought the solicitors were getting back today with the offers. I thought Kaia was accepting and marluc was going to let it go to court.

Have they got the hearings then

Yes M you are right , waiting for the call about the offer I had on Friday, I rejected it and went back to them with other issues and they were going to contact me today (because their defence was meant to be in by today, they were applying for a 7 day extention, so we could sort things out)
Marluc rejected their offer and is waiting for the papers from the court today but will not be home till 6pm , s we shall have to wait until tonight to hear her story.