PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

m.colak

sampainter wrote: »

{quote}

Hi Sampainter,
I would say that there is a major issue that the FOS and anyone else who has advised you so far has missed. I beleive that you could challenge this entire loan because the ppi has been added into the amount of credit on a regulated agreement. As the ppi can be challenged then so can the loan itself.

As for the FOS, are you aware that this organisation is funded by the institutions themselves?

OK petermb so what do you suggest I do now then?
The FOS said my case is now being passed to an adjudicator and could take 5 to 6 months before anything happens![/quote]

Sampainter at this point i ask you to look at this logically. I find myself in the position again that i don't agree with Petermb. If you get a loan and then you choose (involuntarily/voluntarily) to take PPI you have taken two products. Mutual exclusive products but they are tied together via payments. You can't claim that you didn't need the loan or the conditions of the loan were unsatisfactory (Unless enhanced rebate rule 78 has been applied). You can claim that the PPI was mis sold but how the hell can you claim that the PPI was wrong and therefore you get your money back on the loan itself. It doesn't make sense at all.

Therefore Petermb explain your criptic message. If you intend to help this thread then post the information and don't go fishing for customers.

m.colak

TwinsMum wrote: »

I have still not received my cheque that I should have received on Tuesday, did receive my free gift though that was a hamper (quite a big one) as a sorry that I had to complain (not the pen and mug that I was expecting). FirstPlus have assured cheque is in the post well it ain't been posted to me surely Postman Pat isn't that slow????? so will keep waiting.

Hi twinsmum,

You haven't touched the Hamper yet have you??. Have you received anything in writing saying that the hamper was a gift and not compensation in kind?. Not being sceptical here but beware of trojan horse's.

marshallka

Just had my letter from Firstplus and final response this morning. Its not good


I am sorry to hear that you are unhappy with the settlement figure, however, i can confirm that this is correct and will not be reduced.

Your settlement figure of £20410.71 which you used to settle on 7th April, 2003 was calculated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract between you and firstplus. These are based on a formula known as the rule of 78 which is prescribed by the consumer credit act 1974 and enforced by the office of fair trading. I would also mention that

...We actually apply a "cap" to this formula and produce a more favourable settlement figure than is actually required of us by the act. Had we not done so, the settlement figure would have been much higher.

...Many financial institutions use this standard formula for calculating early settlement

...Information regarding settlement charges is included in your loan agreement and information booklet.

I appreciate that your settlement figure may appear higher than you anticipated and i can confirm that this is principally because during the first few years of the loan, most of the monthly instalment amount covers interest accrued rather than reducing the actual balance of the loan with capital repayments.

The prescribed rule of 78 formula compensates the lender for costs incurred to set up the loan (ie land registry fees, legal fees, documents fees admin fees) and also for income lost from the early settlement.

The combination of these reasons may therefore make it appear that firstplus applied a penalty for early settlement of your account when this is not the case, and the only charge applied to the account was £50 settlement fee which is used to cover the legal cost of releasing our charge of the property.

This is our final response.

What now.

We took out £17,000
ppi added (single premium) £4163
Repaid about £11,250 in installments and still owed

£20,410 settlement

Course they didn't rip us off.

gt568

m.colak wrote: »

Therefore Petermb explain your criptic message. If you intend to help this thread then post the information and don't go fishing for customers.

More chance of platting snot, he'll never explain in public...it sadly is his modus opperandi....cryptic message, followed by PM, trawling MSE for customers...which IMHO is not what MSE is about....

We have crossed swords before.

m.colak

marshallka wrote: »

Just had my letter from Firstplus and final response this morning. Its not good


I am sorry to hear that you are unhappy with the settlement figure, however, i can confirm that this is correct and will not be reduced.

Your settlement figure of £20410.71 which you used to settle on 7th April, 2003 was calculated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract between you and firstplus. These are based on a formula known as the rule of 78 which is prescribed by the consumer credit act 1974 and enforced by the office of fair trading. I would also mention that

...We actually apply a "cap" to this formula and produce a more favourable settlement figure than is actually required of us by the act. Had we not done so, the settlement figure would have been much higher.

...Many financial institutions use this standard formula for calculating early settlement

...Information regarding settlement charges is included in your loan agreement and information booklet.

I appreciate that your settlement figure may appear higher than you anticipated and i can confirm that this is principally because during the first few years of the loan, most of the monthly instalment amount covers interest accrued rather than reducing the actual balance of the loan with capital repayments.

The prescribed rule of 78 formula compensates the lender for costs incurred to set up the loan (ie land registry fees, legal fees, documents fees admin fees) and also for income lost from the early settlement.

The combination of these reasons may therefore make it appear that firstplus applied a penalty for early settlement of your account when this is not the case, and the only charge applied to the account was £50 settlement fee which is used to cover the legal cost of releasing our charge of the property.

This is our final response.

What now.

We took out £17,000
ppi added (single premium) £4163
Repaid about £11,250 in installments and still owed

£20,410 settlement

Course they didn't rip us off.

Hiya,

send another letter and state that the OFT released a paper in 1997 (Get the exact paper name from the link i previously posted) telling all unregulated financial bodies (Which Firstplus was) to stop using rule 78 and therefore you beleive the company deliberately went against policy and will take this matter to court if absolutely necessary, to that end you would like a full breakdown of the cost incurred by Firstplus relating to this Loan and a full breakdown of the settlement figure including all the relevant charges within 14 days.

Laini

marshallka wrote: »

Just had my letter from Firstplus and final response this morning. Its not good


I am sorry to hear that you are unhappy with the settlement figure, however, i can confirm that this is correct and will not be reduced.

Your settlement figure of £20410.71 which you used to settle on 7th April, 2003 was calculated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract between you and firstplus. These are based on a formula known as the rule of 78 which is prescribed by the consumer credit act 1974 and enforced by the office of fair trading. I would also mention that

...We actually apply a "cap" to this formula and produce a more favourable settlement figure than is actually required of us by the act. Had we not done so, the settlement figure would have been much higher.

...Many financial institutions use this standard formula for calculating early settlement

...Information regarding settlement charges is included in your loan agreement and information booklet.

I appreciate that your settlement figure may appear higher than you anticipated and i can confirm that this is principally because during the first few years of the loan, most of the monthly instalment amount covers interest accrued rather than reducing the actual balance of the loan with capital repayments.

The prescribed rule of 78 formula compensates the lender for costs incurred to set up the loan (ie land registry fees, legal fees, documents fees admin fees) and also for income lost from the early settlement.

The combination of these reasons may therefore make it appear that firstplus applied a penalty for early settlement of your account when this is not the case, and the only charge applied to the account was £50 settlement fee which is used to cover the legal cost of releasing our charge of the property.

This is our final response.

What now.

We took out £17,000
ppi added (single premium) £4163
Repaid about £11,250 in installments and still owed

£20,410 settlement

Course they didn't rip us off.

just to say we have taken our unfair rebate and missold ppi to FOS.
do they really think we wanted to borrow more to put in their pockets and if it had been explained to us the real deal we would not have taken it.
keep pushing we cant all be wrong and why is this site here to have a joke on us?- NO because we all know we have been conned into financial situations we didnt understand and were pushed into.
good luck
Laini xxx:mad::mad:

m.colak

gt568 wrote: »

More chance of platting snot, he'll never explain in public...it sadly is his modus opperandi....cryptic message, followed by PM, trawling MSE for customers...which IMHO is not what MSE is about....

We have crossed swords before.

I know same here GT however last time i posted an apology for slighting him. However i think in this case there is a valid point. If you are going to post advice back it up with information or places to look not make cryptic comments.

toneog

Thanks for responding M. colak and Laini.

I will check to see if rule 78 is written anywhere on the agrement later.

It might sound daft but what is a SAR ??


I have sent 1 letter to Paragon who came back trying to fob me off saying that i agreed to PPi and that it is a problem for Freedom Finance.

m.colak

toneog wrote: »

Thanks for responding M. colak and Laini.

I will check to see if rule 78 is written anywhere on the agrement later.

It might sound daft but what is a SAR ??


I have sent 1 letter to Paragon who came back trying to fob me off saying that i agreed to PPi and that it is a problem for Freedom Finance.

Basically your asking for a copy of your customer credit agreement which should contain all information pertaining to when you applied for the loan. It will have your signature a breakdown of the figure borrowed any charges applied and some other stuff who's exact make up is described on the OFT website.

kittycatsam

Hi M.Colak
I'm assuming from your post that Petermb will be reffering to the fact that your contract could be irredeemably unenforceable due to technicalities in the way it was written out and being pre April 2006 changes to CCA. I aren't really au fait with this myself as it's a bit confusing but after going to a seminar about this I have some paper examples of contracts which are unenforceable due to various reasons. If you want me to I'll post these to you for a look see and compare them to your contract.
Sam