PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

sarahc5388

marshallka wrote: »

when is m colak back.

not really sure - but soon I hope!

alleybabes

sarahc5388 wrote: »

chin up! we all have bad days :grouphug: (this looks rude but it's a group hug - it cheered up the last person I sent it to - hopefully it will work on you too!)

lol that did cheer me up thanks

alleybabes

tiggrae wrote: »

There are 3 types of misrepresentation, fraudulent, negligent & innocent - in reclaiming for mis selling it is Negligent Misrepresentation you need to go for

this is the important bit -

• Negligent misrepresentation at common law occurs when the defendant carelessly makes a representation while having no reasonable basis to believe it to be true. This type of misrepresentation is relatively new and was introduced to allow damages in situations where neither a collateral contract nor fraud is found. It was first seen in the case of Hedley Byrne v. Heller [1964] A.C. 465 where the court found that a statement made negligently that was relied upon can be actionable in tort. Lord Denning in Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Mardon [1976] Q.B. 108 however, transported the tort into contract law, stating the rule as:

if a man, who has or professes to have special knowledge or skill, makes a representation by virtue thereof to another…with the intention of inducing him to enter into a contract with him, he is under a duty to use reasonable care to see that the representation is correct, and that the advice, information or opinion is reliable

• Negligent misrepresentation under Statute, enacted by the Misrepresentation Act 1967. When dealing with a negligent misrepresentation it is most lucrative[5] (joint with fraudulent misrepresentation, Contributory Negligence notwithstanding[6]) for an action to be brought under statute law as the burden of proof that is required passes to the person who made the statement.

So it is for the person who made the negligent statement to prove that the statement was either not one of fact but opinion and that "had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made that the facts represented were true"[7] - the so-called innocent defence.

Thanks tiggrae the whole thing is getting to me i want it finished now

marshallka

alleybabes wrote: »

Thanks tiggrae the whole thing is getting to me i want it finished now

I know that feeling. You are not alone.

pamril1

pamril1 wrote: »

Help I need a bit of advice. I Sent the template letter off to GE Home Money Lending requesting they reimburse me for my ppi on a secured loan I had three years ago. They definately mis sold the policy as I didn't realise that it was only covering 5 years and we paid a single premium for the policy and repaid the loan after only a year.
They replied telling me that they did not sell me the policy it was a company called Advantage, although I never had dealings with this company and was almost certain that GE were just playing games I sent the same template to Advantage just to be certain and guess what they have no records. Advantage were understandably unhappy that GE had tried to pass the buck and tried to contact GE in order to sort it out on my behalf but were told they did not hold authority to discuss the matter. Advantage have advised me to find all copies of documents relating to the loan and ppi and send them with copy of the letter they sent me today to GE.
What shall I write in my covering letter? Is there a piece of legislation regarding companies that deliberately try to dodge the bullet? Shall I threaten them?
I have found my original documents and every piece says Igroup, which from what I can make out was the name they used to go by but does this mean I cannot reclaim?
Any advise would be greatly appreciated as I'm really no good with these things:D

Well I complained to thr FOS because I wasn't getting anywhere from either company:mad:

Today I received a response from FOS and it appears that Advantage were the brokers and paid £600 commision for "advice" however FOS cannot continue with my complaint until I contact Advantage and bring this to their attention as they need to be able to defend themselves against the evidence. So I have to wait 8 weeks to resubmit my complaint or get a final response from Advantage. I'm soo confused, I just can't get my head around all of this as I am just no good, why if Advantage are liable is all my paperwork relating to the ppi in the name of GE? Whats this advice that Advantage were paid for?
Think I may just have to walk away from all of this and let them get away with it....the big guys win again!

tiggrae

pamril1 wrote: »

Well I complained to thr FOS because I wasn't getting anywhere from either company:mad:

Today I received a response from FOS and it appears that Advantage were the brokers and paid £600 commision for "advice" however FOS cannot continue with my complaint until I contact Advantage and bring this to their attention as they need to be able to defend themselves against the evidence. So I have to wait 8 weeks to resubmit my complaint or get a final response from Advantage. I'm soo confused, I just can't get my head around all of this as I am just no good, why if Advantage are liable is all my paperwork relating to the ppi in the name of GE? Whats this advice that Advantage were paid for?
Think I may just have to walk away from all of this and let them get away with it....the big guys win again!

Right you need to go back to the FOS with the following - this piece of legislation makes the credit grantor (GE) responsible for anything their authorised agents (Advantage) 'advise'. Write the same to GE - I can supply you with the guidance document issued by the Office of Fair Trading into this legislation to give to the FOS & GE if need be - if the FOS or courts find against GE then it is upto GE to recoup any losses from Advantage - throw the ball back firmly into their court !!!!

under Section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (‘CCA 1974’), 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 – therefore, under Section 75 of the CCA 1974, our clients holds you responsible for the mis selling by your Authorised Agents

pamril1

tiggrae wrote: »

Right you need to go back to the FOS with the following - this piece of legislation makes the credit grantor (GE) responsible for anything their authorised agents (Advantage) 'advise'. Write the same to GE - I can supply you with the guidance document issued by the Office of Fair Trading into this legislation to give to the FOS & GE if need be - if the FOS or courts find against GE then it is upto GE to recoup any losses from Advantage - throw the ball back firmly into their court !!!!

under Section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (‘CCA 1974’), 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 – therefore, under Section 75 of the CCA 1974, our clients holds you responsible for the mis selling by your Authorised Agents

Thanks Tiggrae
I just felt like I was banging my head against a wall with this. I really appreciate your help. When resubmitting a complaint to FOS do you start the process off again or send it too the person who initially dealt with it?
You said you could supply me with the guidance document, I think this will help if I sent it so can I take you up on that please.

tiggrae

pamril1 wrote: »

Thanks Tiggrae
I just felt like I was banging my head against a wall with this. I really appreciate your help. When resubmitting a complaint to FOS do you start the process off again or send it too the person who initially dealt with it?
You said you could supply me with the guidance document, I think this will help if I sent it so can I take you up on that please.

no send it to the person you have already dealt with, tell them you have a legal basis for making your complaint against GE and the FOS should abide by this legislation - this is a little known piece of legislation that needs to have greater visability - send me your email address and I'll send you a copy - good luck and let us know how you get on !!!!

ps if they come back with 'our rules say' tell them they should be abiding by the law which is there to protect you as a consumer !!

Going off line now - this is the link to the oft guidance doc http://www.itra.net/adjuntos/Consumer%20Creedit%20oft303.pdf

Anne.Jade

Hey Everyone

Got a letter from FirstPlus today offering me an enhanced rebate for both my loans which totals £3,004.84. They said they are satisfied that the details of the PPI were explained to me correctly and information regarding the cover was sent to me for consideration prior to proceeding with the arrangment. They said they are therefore satisfied that I was provided with enough information to make an informed decision as to the suitability of the policy but they are willing to reach an agreement with me. The offer is made with no admission of liability and is purely a gesture of goodwill.

I have already lodged my complaint with the FOS as FP took months to reach this decision.

FP want me to sign acceptances for this offer but my calculations, if the FOS goes in my favour, they owe me nearly £8,000.

I am a bit worried that if the FOS don't go in my favour, although I do still think the policies were miss-sold, I will get nothing.

What do you think I should do?

tomglentanar

tiggrae wrote: »

no send it to the person you have already dealt with, tell them you have a legal basis for making your complaint against GE and the FOS should abide by this legislation - this is a little known piece of legislation that needs to have greater visability - send me your email address and I'll send you a copy - good luck and let us know how you get on !!!!

ps if they come back with 'our rules say' tell them they should be abiding by the law which is there to protect you as a consumer !!

Going off line now - this is the link to the oft guidance doc http://www.itra.net/adjuntos/Consumer%20Creedit%20oft303.pdf

Does this include loan value greater than £25,000, i.e secured on property?