PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

marshallka

bb23 wrote: »

all that i ended up with was the 8k

its very weird, i remember him muttering as he was going through it saying stuff like "ok, so we'll ad this here, and we'll take this off now, then we can pay off your debt here with this and then put this back on here" something like that, it wasnt exactly that - i cant remember now it was 5 years ago. i do remember wondering why he was doing like that.

:rolleyes:

Is it your local bank? If it is then call in and get a computer print out and explain this to them. Ask to see the manager..

tiggrae

kate08 wrote: »

Sorry to bother again, I'm a newbie! Has anyone had any experience with HSBC in regards to PPI? I tried to look through all the posts and didn't see them mentioned a lot. I took out a small personal loan with my business bank account face-to-face in my branch. I'm self-employed and am now thinking that PPI would never have been any use to me? Any comments before I start to on my first reclaiming mission??!

Don't bother ringing, you'll get nowhere, just put you complaint in writing and when they deny your claim (they usually do) take it to the Financial Ombudsman

marshallka

Tiggrae, see my post before about Firstplus's response to section 75 equal liability and just called them and they still are adamant its only for the purchase of something on a credit card.

I have read them lots of statements from oft and fos but they STILL say this does not apply to us and certainly not to the sale of PPI insurance.

I hope you are right on this one as i have gone off on one with them stating how wrong they are.

tiggrae

angelwillow wrote: »

Sure I read somewhere on this thread that Capital One weren't regulated to sell insurance until fairly recently so the FO couldn't help. My complaint has been with FO waiting to get allocated since March - are they likely to just tell me it's a no go months down the line once it finally gets allocated?

depends upon when you took out the insurance - they wern't under the financial ombudsmans jurisdiction until 15.01.05

tiggrae

sparky0107 wrote: »

Morning all,
Sent off to Halifax Cetelem, for my original CCA, for retail sale of 3 piece suite from CSL, put in the letter about sales person being pushy, not stating policy was optional & lack of training for selling insurance products, then sent off the template letter asking for PPI back. Received this reply yesterday, can you tell me where to go from here? Any help appreciated.

Cetelem (UK) Limited

Anderston House
389 Argyle Street
Glasgow
Scotland
G2 8LR

Sparky 0107
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

Account number: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX



Dear Sparky0107

We refer to your letter concerning Payment Protection Insurance (PPI).

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the allegation that you were mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance (PPI).

The Agreement makes it clear that PPI was optional; the criteria for making a claim are set out clearly, as is the cost of the policy. You have failed to provide any evidence substantiating your claim that the retailer failed to explain the key aspects of your policy or provide information at the time to enable you to make an informed decision as to whether or not to accept PPI. For those reasons the allegation that you were mis-sold PPI is refuted.

As you will be aware, the sale of PPI was not regulated until 14 January 2005. In addition, we confirm that, other than holding the requisite consumer credit licence (as required by the Office of Fair Trading), Cetelem (UK) Limited was not and was never a member of the General Insurance Standards Council (GISC) or the Association of British Insurers (ABI). Furthermore, Cetelem (UK) Limited is not a member of the Financial & Leasing Association (FLA). As a result, neither the Financial Ombudsman Service nor the FLA have jurisdiction to deal with this matter.

Furthermore, we confirm that Cetelem (UK) Limited ceased to write any business with effect from January 2005

Yours Sincerely
XXXXXX XXXXX

Thanks again

hmmm you've got a problem, do you live in scotland ???

mortimerrankine

sarahc5388 wrote: »

which company are to claiming form? have you written to them yet?

hi, It is the infamous welcome finance. Yes i have written to them and they are denying everything. FOS wont look at it coz it was 2003 so i had no other option.

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

Tiggrae, see my post before about Firstplus's response to section 75 equal liability and just called them and they still are adamant its only for the purchase of something on a credit card.

I have read them lots of statements from oft and fos but they STILL say this does not apply to us and certainly not to the sale of PPI insurance.

I hope you are right on this one as i have gone off on one with them stating how wrong they are.

I've taken this from the first two paragraphs of the OFT document I sent you as you see the 2nd paragraph says - this is about credit (including loans) not just on credit card - they are deliberately mis interpreting as the legilation is normally used for buying on credit cards but it isn't exclusive !!!!

If credit is involved, the situation can be more complicated. Often a supplier does not provide the finance himself, but arranges for a bank or finance company to do so. Or he may accept a credit card or trading check. In these circumstances, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the credit grantor (whoever provides the credit) normally becomes equally responsible for any breach of contract or misrepresentation by the supplier.

When a trader says that he will supply a customer with goods or services at an agreed price, there is a legally binding contract (not necessarily in writing) between them. Many of the supplier's obligations are set out in legislation, such as the Sale of Goods Act 1979 which says, among other things, that any goods supplied must be of 'satisfactory quality' and 'as described' to the customer. Just as a supplier can sue a customer who refuses to pay, so a customer can sue a supplier who does not fulfil his obligations for breach of contract. A supplier can also be sued if he persuades a customer to enter a contract by making a false statement of fact - or misrepresentation. Under this head, a customer's right to
damages is governed in England and Wales principally by the Misrepresentation Act 1967, in Northern Ireland by the Misrepresentation (Northern Ireland) Act 1967, and in Scotland by common law.

1.2 If credit is involved, the situation can be more complicated. Often a supplier does not provide the finance himself, but arranges for a bank or finance company to do so. Or he may accept a credit card or trading check. In these circumstances, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the credit grantor (whoever provides the credit) normally becomes equally responsible for any breach of contract or misrepresentation by the supplier.

Read the whole of the document - you'll see it's not just refering to purchases on credit cards - did you send this document to them ????

sarahc5388

tiggrae wrote: »

hmmm you've got a problem, do you live in scotland ???

can't find any CSL stores in Scotland

sarahc5388

mortimerrankine wrote: »

hi, It is the infamous welcome finance. Yes i have written to them and they are denying everything. FOS wont look at it coz it was 2003 so i had no other option.

oh dear!!! - search this thread and see what you can find from other people, I think there's quite a lot on here about them, but please do not give up - we'll all help as much as we can

tiggrae

tiggrae wrote: »

I've taken this from the first two paragraphs of the OFT document I sent you as you see the 2nd paragraph says - this is about credit (including loans) not just on credit card - they are deliberately mis interpreting as the legilation is normally used for buying on credit cards but it isn't exclusive !!!!

If credit is involved, the situation can be more complicated. Often a supplier does not provide the finance himself, but arranges for a bank or finance company to do so. Or he may accept a credit card or trading check. In these circumstances, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the credit grantor (whoever provides the credit) normally becomes equally responsible for any breach of contract or misrepresentation by the supplier.

When a trader says that he will supply a customer with goods or services at an agreed price, there is a legally binding contract (not necessarily in writing) between them. Many of the supplier's obligations are set out in legislation, such as the Sale of Goods Act 1979 which says, among other things, that any goods supplied must be of 'satisfactory quality' and 'as described' to the customer. Just as a supplier can sue a customer who refuses to pay, so a customer can sue a supplier who does not fulfil his obligations for breach of contract. A supplier can also be sued if he persuades a customer to enter a contract by making a false statement of fact - or misrepresentation. Under this head, a customer's right to
damages is governed in England and Wales principally by the Misrepresentation Act 1967, in Northern Ireland by the Misrepresentation (Northern Ireland) Act 1967, and in Scotland by common law.

1.2 If credit is involved, the situation can be more complicated. Often a supplier does not provide the finance himself, but arranges for a bank or finance company to do so. Or he may accept a credit card or trading check. In these circumstances, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the credit grantor (whoever provides the credit) normally becomes equally responsible for any breach of contract or misrepresentation by the supplier.

Read the whole of the document - you'll see it's not just refering to purchases on credit cards - did you send this document to them ????

this is taken direct from the CCA 74 Act - as you'll see it's taking about credit not one sentance uses the words credit cards - so as usual they are talking complete B*&L$XKS

PART VI
MATTERS ARISING DURING CURRENCY OF CREDIT OR HIRE
AGREEMENTS
75.—(1) If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

(2) Subject to any agreement between them, the creditor shall be entitled to be indemnified by the supplier for loss suffered by the creditor in satisfying his liability under subsection (1), including costs reasonably incurred by him in defending proceedings instituted by the debtor.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a claim—
(a) under a non-commercial agreement, or

(b) so far as the claim relates to any single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding £30 or more than £10,000.

(4) This section applies notwithstanding that the debtor, in entering into the

transaction, exceeded the credit limit or otherwise contravened any term of the agreement.

(5) In an action brought against the creditor under subsection (1) he shall be entitled, in accordance with rules of court, to have the supplier made a party to the proceedings.

ps if you speak to First Plus again, ask them to read you the specific piece of legislation they're using to say S75 only relates to credit card purchases !!!