PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

m.colak

Kaia wrote: »

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?

They can apply to the court for an extension which will be determined by the judge of the case. This extension must however be agreed by both parties as acceptable. Phone them and let them know of the situation.

Kaia_2

Ok will give him a ring and let him know.
Thanks M

m.colak

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

Can't wait to see the improved version myself. Still have no response from the judge on my case. For recap the Halifax contested the Judgement and we went to a hearing. The Halifax had until th 15th May to file a defense and pay the expense's i incurred travelling to the court hearing. Funny enough they did neither and am still waiting for the Judge to uphold the judgement and for me to receive £1200 back from the Halifax. God sometimes the Courts are slower than the FOS and thats saying something.

Just a heads up to everyone I know i'm not that important but will be out of communication until after 6 tonight am going to sea lol.

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

Get it now:D

Hi Marshallka, do you have an email address, I've just found a document which may help - it's an OFT document and the front page states:

Buying or selling on credit - who is responsible if things
go wrong? In certain circumstances under section 75 of
the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the credit grantor may be
equally responsible for any breach of contract or
misrepresentation by the supplier.

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

Hi Marshallka, do you have an email address, I've just found a document which may help - it's an OFT document and the front page states:

Buying or selling on credit - who is responsible if things
go wrong? In certain circumstances under section 75 of
the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the credit grantor may be
equally responsible for any breach of contract or
misrepresentation by the supplier.

pm'd it to you, thanks for this.

Perhaps i would be best sending this m colaks drafted letter to Firstplus as well then.

Any advice.

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

pm'd it to you, thanks for this.

Perhaps i would be best sending this m colaks drafted letter to Firstplus as well then.

Any advice.

THE SUPPLIER AS THE CREDIT GRANTOR'S AGENT.

1.7 Frequently, the supplier is the only person a customer has any contact with during negotiations. He provides information about the credit terms as well as about the goods, land, or services being financed
by the credit. In this case (if it is a regulated agreement), under section 56 of the Act the supplier is taken to act on the credit grantor's behalf - as his agent - as well as his own. In effect, this makes the credit grantor responsible for the negotiations as if he had conducted them himself. This is an addition to any responsibility he may have under section 75.

HOW EQUAL LIABILITY WORKS

1.8 Although section 75 is concerned with breach of contract or misrepresentation by a supplier (on goods, land or services financed by credit), it does not itself provide grounds for a claim against that supplier
by a customer. (Such action must be taken under other law, such as the Sale of Goods Act or the Misrepresentation Act.) But if the customer has a claim against the supplier, under section 75 he has a like claim against the credit grantor. He can choose whether to sue the supplier, the credit grantor, or both, for the full amount of the claim. In most cases, it is sensible to claim from the supplier first if he is still in business.

this is the relevant section - I think this could be used as an arguement to get the FOS to look at the complaint against First Plus as the Credit Grantor rather then the Supplier (freedom finance or bespoke) if you win then FP have the option of regaining their money from Freedom or bespoke

Kaia_2

Well the call came
I have been told that he his speaking to his clients this afternoon and he asked me if they agree on what I proposed , he would draft up the letter and e mail, then we would need to sign and fax back, I said we would agree onlyIF its as long as it regards the mis-sold PPI that was added to our loan.The acceptance of full and final settlement figure does not restrict our legal entitlement to challenge any future issues that may be found with the agreement and or loan, now or in the future."
Thought this would give me peace of mind over any rule 78 conditions , as our loan is still active and has another 9 years to run, and as I dont understand these things I dont want to get ripped off again, it just gives me the reassurance I need.:rolleyes:

So he is speaking with clients and getting back to me this afternoon.

homer_j_3

I watch with interest on this.

Kaia_2

homer_j wrote: »

I watch with interest on this.

Hi Homer-j
lets see what they say....:rolleyes: thanks for your advice x

Kaia_2

tiggrae wrote: »

THE SUPPLIER AS THE CREDIT GRANTOR'S AGENT.

1.7 Frequently, the supplier is the only person a customer has any contact with during negotiations. He provides information about the credit terms as well as about the goods, land, or services being financed
by the credit. In this case (if it is a regulated agreement), under section 56 of the Act the supplier is taken to act on the credit grantor's behalf - as his agent - as well as his own. In effect, this makes the credit grantor responsible for the negotiations as if he had conducted them himself. This is an addition to any responsibility he may have under section 75.

HOW EQUAL LIABILITY WORKS
1.8 Although section 75 is concerned with breach of contract or misrepresentation by a supplier (on goods, land or services financed by credit), it does not itself provide grounds for a claim against that supplier
by a customer. (Such action must be taken under other law, such as the Sale of Goods Act or the Misrepresentation Act.) But if the customer has a claim against the supplier, under section 75 he has a like claim against the credit grantor. He can choose whether to sue the supplier, the credit grantor, or both, for the full amount of the claim. In most cases, it is sensible to claim from the supplier first if he is still in business.

this is the relevant section - I think this could be used as an arguement to get the FOS to look at the complaint against First Plus as the Credit Grantor rather then the Supplier (freedom finance or bespoke) if you win then FP have the option of regaining their money from Freedom or bespoke

Hey Marshallka, looks like youre getting somewhere with this now....
keeping everything crossed for you x:D