PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

marshallka

Laini wrote: »

THANKS
the original PPI was 17145.00
rebate 3400 approx
payments made 1800approx
so hopefully looking at at least 14000:money::money::dance:

Original PPI was £17,145.00:eek:

marshallka

northernfly wrote: »

Yes that is correct. Same for the loan.
Thank you for that- I thought so but just wanted some clarification.

Now my second question- when I opened a further card with Lloyds the PPI was automatically put on because they just copied my previous applications. Is that further mis-selling or just me being a bit dim for not questioning them about things?

As regards this they could argue that you never complained. Did you think it was a condition or something? Did you not notice until now that it was on your cards? Was it useable this time or were you still umemployed and it was still useless?

leedspete_2

they didnt tell me it was ppi that i was taking out i havent told them that i have insurance just i wasnt fully informed off all the charges

marshallka

leedspete wrote: »

they didnt tell me it was ppi that i was taking out i havent told them that i have insurance just i wasnt fully informed off all the charges

Well did they say that it was compulsory for the loan/credit? What did they say it was you were taking out?

leedspete_2

they just said it was compulsory and really didnt explain owt else

**AquariausAngel**

MWH1 wrote: »

You've got nothing to lose, so go for it. I found myself in a similar situation with PPI on a loan. I just had it added on by the bank and believed it was part of the interest I was paying. This was back in 2001 when (just like you wrote) I was young and naive . I also had PPI on a very old MBNA card and didn't have a clue what this was for until a friend pointed it out and I cancelled. I remember very clearly that the salesperson desperately pushed his advice of not cancelling. He really went for the hard sell. It took about 15 minutes of me feeling really pressured!

Consider which category you fit in for the mis-selling of your policy. There may be more than one. If there was insufficent information given to you quote the 1967 mis-representation act in your letter to Barclaycard. I suspect it was one of those little boxes (perhaps even pre-ticked by them). Message me back if you need anything else.

Thanks for your comments. Have you managed to recover your PPI from your loan taken out in 2001?

I have sent off an official complaint to the FOS and I am waiting for Barclaycard to send me the signed documentation when I 'agreed' to having PPI. I will check to see if there is a pre-ticked box then. I don't think I'm allowed to write back to them after their Final Response am I? I don't even know how much PPI I have accrued anyway. I was thinking of writing back and asking for a list of how much PPI I have paid to date, shall I do this or wait for the FOS to get back to me?

marshallka

**AquariausAngel** wrote: »

Thanks for your comments. Have you managed to recover your PPI from your loan taken out in 2001?

I have sent off an official complaint to the FOS and I am waiting for Barclaycard to send me the signed documentation when I 'agreed' to having PPI. I will check to see if there is a pre-ticked box then. I don't think I'm allowed to write back to them after their Final Response am I? I don't even know how much PPI I have accrued anyway. I was thinking of writing back and asking for a list of how much PPI I have paid to date, shall I do this or wait for the FOS to get back to me?

If you have had your final response and your complaint is with FOS (you have to have a final response for FOS to get involved) you can still write and correspond with the company but they may not respond back. Have you asked for a SAR (subject access request) from them. Its all the data information that they hold about you and they have to by law answer this within 40 days of asking. It does cost £10 but its well worth it if you are after proof. You will find a template letter on here for the exact information to ask for.

marshallka

leedspete wrote: »

they just said it was compulsory and really didnt explain owt else

leedspete, i have just looked back over your posts and you have been answered what your next step is if you want to claim that this was missold. You do not have to explain that you already have any ppi in place but if you do think that you were missold this then write a letter to welcome and tell them your reasons. You can also ask for a copy of the actual agreement with them which will perhaps tell you more information on when this was actually taken out. From there you will have to wait for their reponse and before going anywhere else (ie if it is with the jurisdiction of the FOS) then you need a final response. If it is outside of the FOS's jurisdiction then there is always the courts route. Sorry cannot be any more help but there are not alot of people on today.

elangar

PLEASE HELP!!!!!!!!!!!

In May 2004 we applied for and took out a secured loan. The loan was brokered by Portfield financial services who did the initial application and swift advances loaned the money, the loan was paid back 9 months later when we moved house. Three years later whilst going through our old paper work we found our mortgage and loan redemption paper work that our solicitor sent to us and we must have filed in a safe place (Back of the draw!), looking through it the redemption figure looked very high for the loan and after contacting swift advances they explained that we had PPI cover with our loan and that we should have cancelled it when the loan was paid off. We were shocked to say the least as we had not asked for ppi cover as we knew that we were going to sell the house later that year, although portfield had mentioned that ppi was available when we first applied.

We have been in contact by letter and telephone with both companies and they are both saying that it is the other parties’ problem to sort. We're just not sure which way to turn now.
We have all of the relevant paper work from Portfield and Swift relating to the loan, application and the signed loan document which does say that there was payment protection I really could not say why we didn't spot it before.

What we need to know is do we have a case and who do we go after.

Please help I'm getting stressed just thinking about it!

Regards
Elangar

marshallka

elangar wrote: »

PLEASE HELP!!!!!!!!!!!

In May 2004 we applied for and took out a secured loan. The loan was brokered by Portfield financial services who did the initial application and swift advances loaned the money, the loan was paid back 9 months later when we moved house. Three years later whilst going through our old paper work we found our mortgage and loan redemption paper work that our solicitor sent to us and we must have filed in a safe place (Back of the draw!), looking through it the redemption figure looked very high for the loan and after contacting swift advances they explained that we had PPI cover with our loan and that we should have cancelled it when the loan was paid off. We were shocked to say the least as we had not asked for ppi cover as we knew that we were going to sell the house later that year, although portfield had mentioned that ppi was available when we first applied.

We have been in contact by letter and telephone with both companies and they are both saying that it is the other parties’ problem to sort. We're just not sure which way to turn now.
We have all of the relevant paper work from Portfield and Swift relating to the loan, application and the signed loan document which does say that there was payment protection I really could not say why we didn't spot it before.

What we need to know is do we have a case and who do we go after.

Please help I'm getting stressed just thinking about it!

Regards
Elangar

Hi, were you told you had to have this ppi? Who sold it to you? Was it at application or the loan company? These are things that you could find out be requesting a SAR from them for £10, ie all data they hold of you.

As regard the settlement it may have been a front loaded policy and this alone is a reason to get claiming. They were also entitled to use rule 78 to calculate the settlement and although this has now been abolished it still can be used on loans prior to 2005.