PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

sarahc5388

marshallka wrote: »

Just had the same reply after emailing again but they have added this to mine now

I would add that if you believe that the company was involved in providing insurance services, it would be helpful if you could provide copies of any relevant documentation for our perusal. This can be faxed to 00 350 200 40282 or scanned and emailed to enforcement @fsc.gi or of course posted to the address below.

Have to get some work done. Although i do not have the relevant insurance policies i have doumented evidence from both Freedom and Bespoke that they sold insurance to me and also FIrstplus as well.

Go for it!!

tiggrae

Elsie2 wrote: »

tiggrae wrote: »

I put;
On 6th June 01 the claimant(I) entered into a finance agreement with First Direct.The believe the payment protection policy sold was done so negligently and under the Misrepresentation Act (1967) s.2(1) seeks redress.The single premium policy was sold even though I was already experiencing financial difficulties + was therefore forced to borrow more.The policy was offered on an opt-out scheme rather than allowing me to opt into the policy.The documentation at the time gave no option to choose the policy as cover had already been accepted,shown by a typed tick in the necessary box.The salesperson suggested that I needed to take this policy and no advice was given on how to opt out.Under the County Courts Act,the claimant is entitled to interest of 8% P/A from the date deprived of the money.This totals £784.44,accruing at the daily rate of 0.021% til judgment or payment.5.I ask the court to enter judgment in my favour for £1443.15 plus interest, totaling £2227.59.

The 2001 accounts closed several years ago, first direct is no longer in a position to supply copies of original loan agreements (I have my originals) however first direct believes that the agreement indicted PPI was optional and the claimant would have been supplied with docs to show it was optional and given a 28 day cooling off period. (my documents show a pre-ticked box in the PPI option so it was a choice to opt out rather than opt in, something I didn’t know was possible at the time)

Ok you need to write to First Plus (send a copy to the court and ask them to place a copy on the Court File in advance of the hearing date - also tell FP that's what you've done)

• Lord Denning in Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Mardon [1976] Q.B. 108, stated the rule as:

if a person, 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.

As First Direct, in your own admission (see attached document date ?? ) has no record as to whether the record indicated whether the PPI was optional or not. Therefore, it cannot be possible to prove Negligent Misrepresentation did not take place and I reiterate my claim statement the PPI element of the loan agreement was pre-ticked and therefore, on the information provided at the time, my interpretation was that is was Compulsory, and I as a reasonable person was induced into said contract for PPI


- you also need to look at what the FSA have stated on pre-ticked PPI - they've told all companies not to use them.

It is denied that the claimant is entitled to relief sought in that the agreements were discharged pursuant to their terms during 2002, the claimant received good consideration for those not refunded when the accounts were closed, the defendant did not act as financial advisor, in any event the claim related to funds advanced during 2001, more than 6 years prior to the proceedings and is therefore stature-barred.

Although the loans were opened over 6 years ago, the timescales between the loan ending and the beginning of my proceedings was within the 6 year limit and therefore, under the Statute of Limitations Act 1981, should not be interpreted as being Statute-barred.

Just put that section in - but you'll need to become familiar with the Statute of Limitations Act

Dicky2K

Just letting people know, I've had the first letter back from ROS (Natwest) and it was "We're sorry to hear you feel this way..." etc.. "please give us more information".. they sent a 3 page form to fill in, which i have done and sent that back now.. Will keep you all informed..

Elsie2_2

tiggrae wrote: »

Elsie2 wrote: »

The 2001 accounts closed several years ago, first direct is no longer in a position to supply copies of original loan agreements (I have my originals) however first direct believes that the agreement indicted PPI was optional and the claimant would have been supplied with docs to show it was optional and given a 28 day cooling off period. (my documents show a pre-ticked box in the PPI option so it was a choice to opt out rather than opt in, something I didn’t know was possible at the time)

Ok you need to write to First Plus (send a copy to the court and ask them to place a copy on the Court File in advance of the hearing date - also tell FP that's what you've done)

• Lord Denning in Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Mardon [1976] Q.B. 108, stated the rule as:

if a person, 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.

As First Direct, in your own admission (see attached document date ?? ) cannot provide a copy of the loan / PPI agreement, you cannot possible prove Negligent Misrepresentation did not take place and I reiterate my claim statement the PPI element of the loan agreement was pre-ticked and therefore, my interpretation was that is was Compulsory, and I as a reasonable person was induced into said contract for PPI


- you also need to look at what the FSA have stated on pre-ticked PPI - they've told all companies not to use them.

It is denied that the claimant is entitled to relief sought in that the agreements were discharged pursuant to their terms during 2002, the claimant received good consideration for those not refunded when the accounts were closed, the defendant did not act as financial advisor, in any event the claim related to funds advanced during 2001, more than 6 years prior to the proceedings and is therefore stature-barred.

Although the loans were opened over 6 years ago, the timescales between the loan ending and the beginning of my proceedings was within the 6 year limit and therefore, under the Statute of Limitations Act 1981, should not be interpreted as being Statute-barred.

Just put that section in - but you'll need to become familiar with the Statute of Limitations Act

Thanks for that Tiggrae, some very useful stuff for me to mull over. I've already put all my paperwork into the Court for filing which includes my copy of the original paperwork from First Direct.
I'll look up the statute of limitations act in case i do end up going to court although i'm still sort of hoping they'll settle before it gets there. :eek:

sarahc5388

Dicky2K wrote: »

Just letting people know, I've had the first letter back from ROS (Natwest) and it was "We're sorry to hear you feel this way..." etc.. "please give us more information".. they sent a 3 page form to fill in, which i have done and sent that back now.. Will keep you all informed..

what did the form say - there was a post on here saying not to fill it in as they are fishing for what you know about PPI

singlep

Bespoke did not exist in 2000.

SuzySu

Thanks so so much Tiggrae. One last question - they sent a brochure (but not anything separate for us to sign) re PPI with all the other paperwork. Does the fact they have done this mean it's our fault if we did not query it at the time ie. before we signed. Looking through it now there is all the stuff re "this will only cover you for 5 years" and "we believe this is suitable for you" and "we have recommended this to you....".

Can't they just turn round and say "tough.....we provided you with all the facts and you were stupid enough to sign. You can't come back now and say you don't want it".

Sorry if you've heard all this before - it's all completely new to me. Thanks for all you are doing for everyone. I believe what goes around comes around so you must be in for one hell of a good time in the future.

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

Which is OK, but the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000 which introduced the Financial Ombudsman, didn't come into force until December 2000, and the FOS won't look at anything prior to their inception date.

Tiggrae, were you referring to my claim now as it was Jan 2000. I would still be able to take this through the courts with Firstplus being the lender and Freedom being its "agent". I have now written to all three of these companies as someone will take responsibilty. I just really think this whole Bespoke thing needs smoking out as its so misleading to people taking out loans now and not knowing who the actual seller of the loan is.(Is that not "negligent misrepresentation" in itself). I will be on to the OFT when i have completed a full list of my complaints and what i have found out of this company. Its not fair to make a customer believe that they are being sold finance from the uk and later find out that its a company in Gibraltar that they have to deal with.

marshallka

singlep wrote: »

Bespoke did not exist in 2000.

Oh yes they did. I thought it was later but I have now found out from companies house that they did exist and their incorporation date was 19th march, 1997. It was formerly Karacus until 3rd September, 2003

this information was given by the enforcement in Gib

Bespoke Finance Limited (previously Karacus Limited) has never been licensed or held any authorisation issued by this Commission.

Please find attached a company profile, which provides basic public details about the company as filed at Companies House in Gibraltar. We would like to review any supporting documentation before reaching a view as to whether Bespoke Finance Limited is, or has been involved in licensable activity.

I just need to know what date the selling of insurance became a licensable activity in Gibraltar. I will have to ask them this when i email again.

tiggrae

SuzySu wrote: »

Thanks so so much Tiggrae. One last question - they sent a brochure (but not anything separate for us to sign) re PPI with all the other paperwork. Does the fact they have done this mean it's our fault if we did not query it at the time ie. before we signed. Looking through it now there is all the stuff re "this will only cover you for 5 years" and "we believe this is suitable for you" and "we have recommended this to you....".

Can't they just turn round and say "tough.....we provided you with all the facts and you were stupid enough to sign. You can't come back now and say you don't want it".

Sorry if you've heard all this before - it's all completely new to me. Thanks for all you are doing for everyone. I believe what goes around comes around so you must be in for one hell of a good time in the future.

Too be honest that will probably be their response, you need to think back hard to the point of sale - what was mentioned, why didn't you query it at the time etc etc, but as this is a fairly recent 'sale' you do have the advantage that you could take your claim to the Financial Ombudsman should picture not make a refund - however, this could take some time and if you're wanting to clear the secured loan with Picture you may have to pay it all off !!

ps I'm probably paying for a bad previous life, can only hope it was a good one !! ;-)