PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

m.colak

Kaia wrote: »

Hi Marluc, so you have the date for court then, is that at your local court?
This fee of £300 is that to take you through the next stage, will there be further fees or is that it , do you know? and will you be able to get this fee reimbursed as well???
My claim was served on FF yesterday, so I have all this to come, I am about 4 weeks behind you, so I am following your case with great interest (....and sending you positive vibes )
Are you going to represent yourself in court or taking on help?
Kaia

I must admit i am a little confused that the fee is £300. If it is a fee then at least he will be able to get if refunded (come under costs for serving the case). I will be keeping all my pinkies crossed too. Have still got two weeks to find out if Halifax are going to defend their case (Second time round after they got the judgement overturned). Quite a momential date the bank charges test case ends and i see if Halifax defends its case. Bit of a busy week really.

m.colak

Marluc,

I only saw the last bit of your post reference not receiving documentation. Utilise CPR 18.1 rule (Court Proceedings Rule). This rule comes into force when you have taken the case to court allowing to ask for any information from the company pertaining to your case and if they don't provide it then it will look very bad in the Court's eyes.

m.colak

Goodnight am of to sleep now if you leave any questions for me will answer them in the morning. Sleep well all and i'll speak to you all soon.

Kaia_2

yes off to bed myself now too...just wondering though.....has anyone been to court and actually not won their case in PPI mis-selling?
I havent heard or read of anyone....how would that work then....could the broker/lender claim all costs off you as the claimant???

marluc

Morning everyone!
Another sleepless night!
The £300 fee is for the case to be heard. If we "settle" prior to the case being heard then the £300 will be reimbursed. I haven't actually read about anyone winning against these companies either. As to FF being able to claim costs, the court letter states that the company cannot claim costs against an individual.
I will be representing myself at the moment. I'm sure though that as time gets closer I will see about taking a solicitor with me, as it's already stressing me out.

Anne.Jade

Laini wrote: »

as m colak has said the letter template I posted requests they give you all info on your account including any notes they may have you dont know about -so its worth asking for.
you should receive it within 40 days or you can report them.

it sounds like you have a good case on the loan and ppi.concerning your age.

for example
my dad had been offered/pushed into PPI on a credit card but wasnt eligible so they had to refund his payments when they realised (not my dad) he was over the age limit and even if they had given him it upto ten year previously he was on invalidity with a heart condition .(this was a few years ago- my dad passed away 18months ago at the age of 72).
so it just shows you they dont take any notice of your details they just want your money.
if you need any help with letters just shout.
this is an example if you were wanting to settle the loan early

I am writing with regards the rebate given on the early settlement I still believe this to be an unfair rebate.

This is due to :-

Non-status lending guidelines for lenders and brokers revised November 1997
I directly quote: "any ancillary charges (for example, on default or early settlement) should be brought to the attention of the borrower before the agreement is entered into and should reflect as closely as possible the costs reasonably incurred by the lender and not already recovered at the time when the charges are made."
I believe that you/the company were in direct violation of this guideline and the rebate does not reflect the possible costs incurred

Again I also back up my belief that the rebate is unfair with the unfair rebate terms. The Financial Services Authority has stated partial refund terms to be unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. They state that refunds should be ‘calculated fairly’ after taking into account ‘justifiable costs’. Therefore I do not believe the rebate given was fair.

£XXXXX added to the loan as a single premium payment, interest was being paid on top of this value and a number of monthly payments being made on top of this, a rebate given of £XXXXX does certainly not seem fair as it is disproportionate in accordance with the FSA ruling on disproportionate rebates.

If I do not receive a letter from you offering a satisfactory settlement or a final response within 14 days I shall be taking my complaint to the Financial Ombudsman.

goodluck
lol
Laini xxx:j

Thanks Laini. I have, in fact, already settled the loan because of the fact that the payments kept going up and I was worried about what I would do to pay it after retirement. I'm going to write back and ask for the missing conversation and say I still think they should have sold me a "suitable" policy if any, i.e just for unemployment/sickness as I was already doubly insured for life. Also they didn't tell me about exclusions but with their latest letter they sent me a copy of the terms of the policy with the exclusions highlighted and say because I had that information I should have cancelled within the 30 days. I will use your lines about unfair rebate as well.

hot ain't it!

homer_j_3

m.colak wrote: »

This comes under broker/intermediary law where if their is commision yes they are supposed to declare it (especially if it gets added to the loan) however in most case's the product and insurance is by the company so it won't have any effect barr come under loan arrangement fees and you can ask for a breakdown of this with a SAR.

I have seen quite a few loans that were arranged prior to 2005 that were not. My understanding is that the lender can also be classed as a broker/intermediary where the PPI is with another company. Which I understand that is quite common in this place.

I am also sure where there is no such disclosure, the overall claim could be potentially better for consumers if this is the case.

Add the fact that if the loan is under 25k, it could be a case that the paperwork is not correct and the loan could become unenforceable. Are people checking for that at the same time that they are looking at the PPI?

m.colak

marluc wrote: »

Morning everyone!
Another sleepless night!
The £300 fee is for the case to be heard. If we "settle" prior to the case being heard then the £300 will be reimbursed. I haven't actually read about anyone winning against these companies either. As to FF being able to claim costs, the court letter states that the company cannot claim costs against an individual.
I will be representing myself at the moment. I'm sure though that as time gets closer I will see about taking a solicitor with me, as it's already stressing me out.

I think you need to re phrase. If the case goes through the small claims court then the defendant can't claim costs at all.

m.colak

homer_j wrote: »

I have seen quite a few loans that were arranged prior to 2005 that were not. My understanding is that the lender can also be classed as a broker/intermediary where the PPI is with another company. Which I understand that is quite common in this place.

I am also sure where there is no such disclosure, the overall claim could be potentially better for consumers if this is the case.

Add the fact that if the loan is under 25k, it could be a case that the paperwork is not correct and the loan could become unenforceable. Are people checking for that at the same time that they are looking at the PPI?

Hi homer_j,

I understand what you are saying that some loans wouldn't be enforceable due to incorrect paperwork but i personnally believe this should only be used in a method to reclaim PPI or disproportional rebates. I don't think people should deliberatley attempt to go down this way unless they are absolutely one hundred percent sure that they will win.

I went to a hearing recently and the judge said that even though the box for PPI was ticked digitally it was my fault for not reading the contractual agreement properly. It is a case of attack this under extreme caution in all case's. The last thing you want is the same events as the Bank Charges where the FOS/OFT get involved and all case's are held for nearly a year.

As for the company being the broker/intermediary as i stated before there is rules and regulation determine the proper conduct of business which weren't regulated, or were regulated properly, previously on this thread. Ie the person selling you the policy has to have undergone training and been a registered member of the GISC (Or similar regulated body) to authorise the advice/selling of said policy.

marluc

m.colak wrote: »

I think you need to re phrase. If the case goes through the small claims court then the defendant can't claim costs at all.

Sorry M Colak - it is as you state, not what I wrote. Sorry if it was misleading. Not my intention.:o