PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

sparky0107

Laini,
Thats fantastic, well done I bet you're glad you carried on fighting.

Congratulations hun

sparky0107

Yeosal,
Sorry to hear you lost your case, what a shame.
Take care

YEOSAL

tiggrae wrote: »

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)

Thanks for the support, I dont feel as gutted as I thought I would though.

The solicitors provided me with their bundle of documents YESTERDAY and TODAY in the waiting area, she gave me a revised defence and a 6 page document entitled "skeleton arguement" The solicitor and the judge were talking about sections and sub sections etc of the limitation act that do not apply. I knew the section and sub sections on which I relied but this was not enough, and I eeven said that I am not a solicitor and any changes I would like to spend time reading and making notes. I did plead my case, but they went really heavily into Limitation Act and that was their defence. It turns out that is all they needed. The judge did know all about the PPI mis-selling and when summing up he said he hoped that this had now stopped as is now regulated. Yeah right!

I did state to the judge that it was surely unfair to present me with stuff so late on that I had not had time to read. He allowed it all and did not reprimand solicitors, so whatever way you look at it, the big companies win. I imagine that their legal costs would have been quite high, would have been cheaper of them to settle.

I hope no one else has to go through what I had today. When I get chance, I will write up their skeleton arguement so anyone else facing this may get some help from it.

It did not matter when I had discovered it as the main event of signing was the only event that mattered. If I had tried to claim and had this refused, the 6 years would have started from that date.

marshallka

YEOSAL wrote: »

Thanks for the support, I dont feel as gutted as I thought I would though.

The solicitors provided me with their bundle of documents YESTERDAY and TODAY in the waiting area, she gave me a revised defence and a 6 page document entitled "skeleton arguement" The solicitor and the judge were talking about sections and sub sections etc of the limitation act that do not apply. I knew the section and sub sections on which I relied but this was not enough, and I eeven said that I am not a solicitor and any changes I would like to spend time reading and making notes. I did plead my case, but they went really heavily into Limitation Act and that was their defence. It turns out that is all they needed. The judge did know all about the PPI mis-selling and when summing up he said he hoped that this had now stopped as is now regulated. Yeah right!

I did state to the judge that it was surely unfair to present me with stuff so late on that I had not had time to read. He allowed it all and did not reprimand solicitors, so whatever way you look at it, the big companies win. I imagine that their legal costs would have been quite high, would have been cheaper of them to settle.

I hope no one else has to go through what I had today. When I get chance, I will write up their skeleton arguement so anyone else facing this may get some help from it.

It did not matter when I had discovered it as the main event of signing was the only event that mattered. If I had tried to claim and had this refused, the 6 years would have started from that date.

I really feel for you yeosal. It annoys me that what the OFt and FSA have found to be wrong now, even though it was wrong then too you cannot win. Its all about dates really. I feel that money is power and it was our scammed money that gave them the god damn power in the first place. It all stinks.

I feel with my case about Freedom if i don't get anywhere (not through lack of trying) then it may help some future victim. Sometimes it takes trial runs with guinea pigs to make the world a better place and we were the testers.

qube99

Please help I had a loan with Black Horse 5 years ago and I paid PPI on this loan I have written to BLack Horse and they are not playing ball and they are not accepting that I was mis-sold my ppi.

The financial ombunsman service are unable to help as black horse were not covered by them at that time.

Can anyone give me any help PLEASE

kay

marshallka

qube99 wrote: »

Please help I had a loan with Black Horse 5 years ago and I paid PPI on this loan I have written to BLack Horse and they are not playing ball and they are not accepting that I was mis-sold my ppi.

The financial ombunsman service are unable to help as black horse were not covered by them at that time.

Can anyone give me any help PLEASE

kay

why were you missold??

marshallka

I think anyone sold a front loaded single premium policy should be allowed to claim regardless if they want to as these policies should not have been allowed in the first place. They are double the cost of any other kind of policy in the end and the people selling these "things" were not regulated to do so so knew nothing of the questions to ask prior. It would save on a lot of money that companies are spending doing peoples sars requests and people asking questions to the FOS and the work load they are having because of this and court fees and so on.

Everyone knows that they were wrong in the first place and the six year limitations act should not apply to this. Then they wonder why we are all getting deeper in debt. Poor yeosal spent £415 to lose in court.

liznewman

Took and Egg loan out in 2006. Was told could not have the load without PPI. We have cancelled the PPI last week. The loan has 2 years to run it was taken out over 5 years.

My question is, should the remaining repayments be minus the PPI. Meaning, would the repayments revert back to the amount they would have been without the PPI?

Not sure if I have explained that right?

Edit: Forgot to say, self employed and a pre medical condition. Was told have to take the PPI because of self employment

Anne.Jade

YEOSAL wrote: »

Thanks for the support, I dont feel as gutted as I thought I would though.

The solicitors provided me with their bundle of documents YESTERDAY and TODAY in the waiting area, she gave me a revised defence and a 6 page document entitled "skeleton arguement" The solicitor and the judge were talking about sections and sub sections etc of the limitation act that do not apply. I knew the section and sub sections on which I relied but this was not enough, and I eeven said that I am not a solicitor and any changes I would like to spend time reading and making notes. I did plead my case, but they went really heavily into Limitation Act and that was their defence. It turns out that is all they needed. The judge did know all about the PPI mis-selling and when summing up he said he hoped that this had now stopped as is now regulated. Yeah right!

I did state to the judge that it was surely unfair to present me with stuff so late on that I had not had time to read. He allowed it all and did not reprimand solicitors, so whatever way you look at it, the big companies win. I imagine that their legal costs would have been quite high, would have been cheaper of them to settle.

I hope no one else has to go through what I had today. When I get chance, I will write up their skeleton arguement so anyone else facing this may get some help from it.

It did not matter when I had discovered it as the main event of signing was the only event that mattered. If I had tried to claim and had this refused, the 6 years would have started from that date.

Hi, sorry about your lost case today - but well done you for being brave enough to go to Court!!! :T

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

I think anyone sold a front loaded single premium policy should be allowed to claim regardless if they want to as these policies should not have been allowed in the first place. They are double the cost of any other kind of policy in the end and the people selling these "things" were not regulated to do so so knew nothing of the questions to ask prior. It would save on a lot of money that companies are spending doing peoples sars requests and people asking questions to the FOS and the work load they are having because of this and court fees and so on.

Everyone knows that they were wrong in the first place and the six year limitations act should not apply to this. Then they wonder why we are all getting deeper in debt. Poor yeosal spent £415 to lose in court.

I think you are so right. My OH has had PPI on about 3 loans and 5 credit cards.(they have now seen the light) and because of this has got themselves deeper and deeper in debt. Its not just the loan it is the cumulative costs of these loans and PPI. When you take your first one out you then get in debt and have to borrow more etc etc. I am so annoyed about the whole thing. If you have medical problems you go to doctor if you have financial problems you go to your bank and expect to be treated fairly with your best interests at heart. I know lots do not agree on the FORUM but one loan I am not only suing for the PPI but the whole loan as invalid, cause I am so fed up of these people praying on vulnerable or unworldly people.

Even though my OH has transferred cards on to 0% finance and settled others we are still getting monthly blank cheques sent from them eg A and L and Barclaycard. They try to encourage you to spend spend spend. Now is not the time it is time to claim claim claim.

Anyway that is my rant at the moment. We have been awarded PPI on three Loans with Barclayloan. Am still waiting to hear back from Barclays. FOS gave them six weeks and they are leaving the final figures to the last minute. Bless Them:mad:
Lets just keeping writing and trying.:rotfl: