PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

tiggrae

di3004 wrote: »

Hi there tiggrae, and thanks for your very helpful reply.;)

We purchased the product in July 2004 and settled in Oct 2005.

On the Credit agreement itself it states it was regulated by the Consumer act 1974.
The loan was £21,000.00
single ppi was £2835.00

Total amount with the both above: £23835.00.

To settle this in Nov 2005 we paid £23646.04

In the SAR docs, the full amount paid all in all for this loan was £26565.18.

The settlement date used in calculation of the rebate is 30th November 2005, it has been calculated in accordance with Regulations 3 of the Consumer Credit (settlement information) Regulations 1983.

The amount of the insurance rebate has been calculated having regard to the Consumer Credit (Rebate on early settlement) Regulations 1983.

I find your information very useful and helpful.
However, as these were also part of the HFC bank do you think I should try to pursue through these ?
I understand these were regulated in 2001, please correct me if I'm wrong here, cheers.

I appreciate your response for this and everyone else too, thank you all.;)

Di.
xxx

Hi I think HFC are part of HSBC so would be regulated in 2001 - as for the early settlement rebate this is what the fsa have to say on early settlement of PPI - I'd go back to Endeavour with a copy of this document say you think the settlement was unfair, if you don't get your money back take your complaint to the FOS for an unfair settlement NOT for mis selling

Refunds of Single Premium Payment Protection Insurance

marshallka

tiggrae, when can time barring be over ruled???

di3004

Thank you so much for your advice/info again, much appreciated indeed.;)

So although Endeavour has closed the case on this its worth writing to these again as a brand new request ?

I will crack on with a letter and let you know how this goes, cheers your very helpful.

Is there anywhere where I can post attachments here, perhaps I could post what I have saved in my documents for you to see ?
Cheers, getting used to the site slowly, pressed the thanks button too, its only just recently I noticed these - silly me lol.:D

You are a great lot on here, thank you.;)

Di.
xxx

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

tiggrae, when can time barring be over ruled???

I would argue the following, the only problem being is that it relates to an unsecured debt rather then specifically mis selling, however I would argue the same principle applies.

Limitation Act 1980 and Unsecured Debts.

The 1980 Limitation Act 1980 states how long a creditor can chase someone for an unpaid debt. This articles explains how the limitation act applies to unsecured lending in England and Wales.

The Limitation Act 1980 applies only when no contact has been made between the creditor and debtor within a certain time limit, and applies to residents of England and Wales only.
The time limit depends on the type of debt. For unsecured loans it is 6 years. If the debtor acknowledges the debt in writing or pays an installment within the original limitation period, then the time limit begins again from the date of acknowledgement or the date of payment.
If the creditor does not contact the debtor for 6 years or more, the debtor may be able to claim that the outstanding debt is Statute Barred under the conditions of the Limitations Act. Statute Barred means the creditor cannot use the legal system to enforce payment.
When a Creditor can pursue an unsecured debt.

A debtor may think (or hope) a creditor has written-off a debt if they have not heard from them for a long time. This may be because of failure to tell the creditor of address changes. The debt still exists and creditors are entitled to chase payment indefinitely.
Creditors can pursue an unsecured debt if:

• There is a CCJ outstanding against the debt.
• Payment to the account has been made within the past 6 years. This includes from other people named on the credit agreement.
• Contact has been made with any party named on the credit agreement. This can be by telephone, letter or email in order to request a balance or change details. An exception to this is contact for reasons to deny the debt exists.

tiggrae

di3004 wrote: »

Thank you so much for your advice/info again, much appreciated indeed.;)

So although Endeavour has closed the case on this its worth writing to these again as a brand new request ?

I will crack on with a letter and let you know how this goes, cheers your very helpful.

Is there anywhere where I can post attachments here, perhaps I could post what I have saved in my documents for you to see ?
Cheers, getting used to the site slowly, pressed the thanks button too, its only just recently I noticed these - silly me lol.:D

You are a great lot on here, thank you.;)

Di.
xxx

yes as it's a new complaint for unfair settlement you have to start the whole process off again - don't even mention the mis selling angle. They'll probably come back with 'it was in their terms & conditions' just respond that you think they are unfair under the Unfair Consumer Contract Regulations 1999

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

I would argue the following, the only problem being is that it relates to an unsecured debt rather then specifically mis selling, however I would argue the same principle applies.

Limitation Act 1980 and Unsecured Debts.

The 1980 Limitation Act 1980 states how long a creditor can chase someone for an unpaid debt. This articles explains how the limitation act applies to unsecured lending in England and Wales.

The Limitation Act 1980 applies only when no contact has been made between the creditor and debtor within a certain time limit, and applies to residents of England and Wales only.
The time limit depends on the type of debt. For unsecured loans it is 6 years. If the debtor acknowledges the debt in writing or pays an installment within the original limitation period, then the time limit begins again from the date of acknowledgement or the date of payment.
If the creditor does not contact the debtor for 6 years or more, the debtor may be able to claim that the outstanding debt is Statute Barred under the conditions of the Limitations Act. Statute Barred means the creditor cannot use the legal system to enforce payment.
When a Creditor can pursue an unsecured debt.

A debtor may think (or hope) a creditor has written-off a debt if they have not heard from them for a long time. This may be because of failure to tell the creditor of address changes. The debt still exists and creditors are entitled to chase payment indefinitely.
Creditors can pursue an unsecured debt if:

• There is a CCJ outstanding against the debt.
• Payment to the account has been made within the past 6 years. This includes from other people named on the credit agreement.
• Contact has been made with any party named on the credit agreement. This can be by telephone, letter or email in order to request a balance or change details. An exception to this is contact for reasons to deny the debt exists.

What about me for negligent misrepresentation of my loan and ppi with Freedom in that i was lead to believe that the processor was the broker. COuld they argue time barred there. It was Jan 2000 but i did not find this out until april this year.

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

What about me for negligent misrepresentation of my loan and ppi with Freedom in that i was lead to believe that the processor was the broker. COuld they argue time barred there. It was Jan 2000 but i did not find this out until april this year.

yes they could

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

yes they could

But from what i have read it is from the date of my finding out that i had been mislead and the fact that even if i wanted to make a claim for the ppi i could not do this (no choice) without doing this through Gib. I wonder if this falls into the "If there has been fraud or mistake, the limitation period does not begin to run until the innocent party has discovered this or should have discovered this"

I would not have had any dealings what so ever with this company had i have known. No way - end of.

Let me know tiggrae what you think.

Laini

YEOSAL wrote: »

Hi

Just to let you know, we lost in court today. The judge agreed with solicitiors that our claim was time barred as I would have known at the start that the insurance was of no use and I could have gone anywhere else for the loan. Judge said I was intelligent enough to know that I was being had and nothing had changed since I took the loan in November 2000 except that I have seen a tv programme and read some news article.

I would certainly advise caution on going to court if the claim is time barred, especially if you are in the least bit intelligent.

£415 down, but it was worth a shot. There is no justice in the world.

so sorry to hear this
Laini x

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

But from what i have read it is from the date of my finding out that i had been mislead and the fact that even if i wanted to make a claim for the ppi i could not do this (no choice) without doing this through Gib. I wonder if this falls into the "If there has been fraud or mistake, the limitation period does not begin to run until the innocent party has discovered this or should have discovered this"

I would not have had any dealings what so ever with this company had i have known. No way - end of.

Let me know tiggrae what you think.

It sometimes boils down to what the judge thinks on the day - as he did today say as an intelligent person you should have discovered it straight away (ie not 8 years later)