PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

m.colak

marshallka wrote: »

how do i find out if they were members of the GISC. I note someone from this forum said they were not and never had been.

Have googled this and everytime i click on where it says GISC website something comes up car insurance.

Have i lost already

this is the site i am clicking it from
http://www.c-i-p.co.uk/gisc.htm

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
Enforceability of agreements

26 Agreements made by unauthorised persons

(1) An agreement made by a person in the course of carrying on a regulated activity in contravention of the general prohibition is unenforceable against the other party.
(2) The other party is entitled to recover—
(a) any money or other property paid or transferred by him under the agreement; and
(b) compensation for any loss sustained by him as a result of having parted with it.
(3) “Agreement” means an agreement—
(a) made after this section comes into force; and
(b) the making or performance of which constitutes, or is part of, the regulated activity in question.
(4) This section does not apply if the regulated activity is accepting deposits.
27 Agreements made through unauthorised persons

(1) An agreement made by an authorised person (“the provider”)—
(a) in the course of carrying on a regulated activity (not in contravention of the general prohibition), but
(b) in consequence of something said or done by another person (“the third party”) in the course of a regulated activity carried on by the third party in contravention of the general prohibition,
is unenforceable against the other party.
(2) The other party is entitled to recover—
(a) any money or other property paid or transferred by him under the agreement; and
(b) compensation for any loss sustained by him as a result of having parted with it.
(3) “Agreement” means an agreement—
(a) made after this section comes into force; and
(b) the making or performance of which constitutes, or is part of, the regulated activity in question carried on by the provider.
(4) This section does not apply if the regulated activity is accepting deposits.
28 Agreements made unenforceable by section 26 or 27

(1) This section applies to an agreement which is unenforceable because of section 26 or 27.
(2) The amount of compensation recoverable as a result of that section is—
(a) the amount agreed by the parties; or
(b) on the application of either party, the amount determined by the court.
(3) If the court is satisfied that it is just and equitable in the circumstances of the case, it may allow—
(a) the agreement to be enforced; or
(b) money and property paid or transferred under the agreement to be retained.
(4) In considering whether to allow the agreement to be enforced or (as the case may be) the money or property paid or transferred under the agreement to be retained the court must—
(a) if the case arises as a result of section 26, have regard to the issue mentioned in subsection (5); or
(b) if the case arises as a result of section 27, have regard to the issue mentioned in subsection (6).
(5) The issue is whether the person carrying on the regulated activity concerned reasonably believed that he was not contravening the general prohibition by making the agreement.
(6) The issue is whether the provider knew that the third party was (in carrying on the regulated activity) contravening the general prohibition.
(7) If the person against whom the agreement is unenforceable—
(a) elects not to perform the agreement, or
(b) as a result of this section, recovers money paid or other property transferred by him under the agreement,
he must repay any money and return any other property received by him under the agreement.
(8) If property transferred under the agreement has passed to a third party, a reference in section 26 or 27 or this section to that property is to be read as a reference to its value at the time of its transfer under the agreement.
(9) The commission of an authorisation offence does not make the agreement concerned illegal or invalid to any greater extent than is provided by section 26 or 27.

Note that it says regulated activity ie if the activity isn't regulated it becomes and invalid contract. Or maybe i should rephrase the activity is regulated by the FSA and the person is only authorised to carryout said financial selling if they have received adequate training as is a member of a financial instituation. If they aren't then they are unauthorised to carry out the sales of the products as brokers or intermediates.

nova

m.colak! you are so knowledgable and very gracious to share,if l've read everything correctly,if creations finance were members of the GISC then the person selling the ppi, namely the shop assistant should have been licensed to sell it? lf l mention this do l stand more of a chance or if l go through mcol will they just refund my money as they wont have a leg to stand on? lt's not actually that much (£411.00) compared with other peoples claims so they may pay to shut me up!!!

Oh Yeah! l can put one of those jumping men on the success thread as Sainsbury's have refunded ppi plus interest! (l've waited so long to put one of them on!!!!):j

m.colak

nova wrote: »

m.colak! you are so knowledgable and very gracious to share,if l've read everything correctly,if creations finance were members of the GISC then the person selling the ppi, namely the shop assistant should have been licensed to sell it? lf l mention this do l stand more of a chance or if l go through mcol will they just refund my money as they wont have a leg to stand on? lt's not actually that much (£411.00) compared with other peoples claims so they may pay to shut me up!!!

Oh Yeah! l can put one of those jumping men on the success thread as Sainsbury's have refunded ppi plus interest! (l've waited so long to put one of them on!!!!):j

Correct if Creations Finance were regulated then you can get them under not training their staff properly likewise with firstplus you can do exactly the same Misk.

m.colak

nova wrote: »

m.colak! you are so knowledgable and very gracious to share,if l've read everything correctly,if creations finance were members of the GISC then the person selling the ppi, namely the shop assistant should have been licensed to sell it? lf l mention this do l stand more of a chance or if l go through mcol will they just refund my money as they wont have a leg to stand on? lt's not actually that much (£411.00) compared with other peoples claims so they may pay to shut me up!!!

Oh Yeah! l can put one of those jumping men on the success thread as Sainsbury's have refunded ppi plus interest! (l've waited so long to put one of them on!!!!):j

If they don't respond to you initial letters then tell them that you intend to follow that course of action through the courts and you believe that the person selling you the insurance was neither trained appropriately or identified your needs correctly.

marshallka

m.colak wrote: »

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
Enforceability of agreements

26 Agreements made by unauthorised persons

(1) An agreement made by a person in the course of carrying on a regulated activity in contravention of the general prohibition is unenforceable against the other party.
(2) The other party is entitled to recover—
(a) any money or other property paid or transferred by him under the agreement; and
(b) compensation for any loss sustained by him as a result of having parted with it.
(3) “Agreement” means an agreement—
(a) made after this section comes into force; and
(b) the making or performance of which constitutes, or is part of, the regulated activity in question.
(4) This section does not apply if the regulated activity is accepting deposits.
27 Agreements made through unauthorised persons

(1) An agreement made by an authorised person (“the provider”)—
(a) in the course of carrying on a regulated activity (not in contravention of the general prohibition), but
(b) in consequence of something said or done by another person (“the third party”) in the course of a regulated activity carried on by the third party in contravention of the general prohibition,
is unenforceable against the other party.
(2) The other party is entitled to recover—
(a) any money or other property paid or transferred by him under the agreement; and
(b) compensation for any loss sustained by him as a result of having parted with it.
(3) “Agreement” means an agreement—
(a) made after this section comes into force; and
(b) the making or performance of which constitutes, or is part of, the regulated activity in question carried on by the provider.
(4) This section does not apply if the regulated activity is accepting deposits.
28 Agreements made unenforceable by section 26 or 27

(1) This section applies to an agreement which is unenforceable because of section 26 or 27.
(2) The amount of compensation recoverable as a result of that section is—
(a) the amount agreed by the parties; or
(b) on the application of either party, the amount determined by the court.
(3) If the court is satisfied that it is just and equitable in the circumstances of the case, it may allow—
(a) the agreement to be enforced; or
(b) money and property paid or transferred under the agreement to be retained.
(4) In considering whether to allow the agreement to be enforced or (as the case may be) the money or property paid or transferred under the agreement to be retained the court must—
(a) if the case arises as a result of section 26, have regard to the issue mentioned in subsection (5); or
(b) if the case arises as a result of section 27, have regard to the issue mentioned in subsection (6).
(5) The issue is whether the person carrying on the regulated activity concerned reasonably believed that he was not contravening the general prohibition by making the agreement.
(6) The issue is whether the provider knew that the third party was (in carrying on the regulated activity) contravening the general prohibition.
(7) If the person against whom the agreement is unenforceable—
(a) elects not to perform the agreement, or
(b) as a result of this section, recovers money paid or other property transferred by him under the agreement,
he must repay any money and return any other property received by him under the agreement.
(8) If property transferred under the agreement has passed to a third party, a reference in section 26 or 27 or this section to that property is to be read as a reference to its value at the time of its transfer under the agreement.
(9) The commission of an authorisation offence does not make the agreement concerned illegal or invalid to any greater extent than is provided by section 26 or 27.

Note that it says regulated activity ie if the activity isn't regulated it becomes and invalid contract. Or maybe i should rephrase the activity is regulated by the FSA and the person is only authorised to carryout said financial selling if they have received adequate training as is a member of a financial instituation. If they aren't then they are unauthorised to carry out the sales of the products as brokers or intermediates.

yeah, thanks for that.

I took the loan in jan 2000, was this before jan 2000.

m.colak

marshallka wrote: »

yeah, thanks for that.

I took the loan in jan 2000, was this before jan 2000.

Erm no will have too look at something else for you. Give me a day and i'll get back to you.

angelwillow

Can anyone help as this is driving me mad!
I have two store cards through GE Money and I am trying to claim the ppi back that I have paid due to the fact that the shop assistant neither told me what the ppi was about nor was even qualified to do so - I wasn't even told it was optional and was told to 'sign here and here'. While I appreciate that I should have looked into it further it was kind of difficult to query it with a large queue behind you so I let it go thinking it was 'the norm'.
FO can't help as GE weren't regulated by them at the time.
FISA say it's nothing to do with them and to contact FO(!)
FLA say I can't claim as I have already put in a claim on these accounts for account charges and it is their policy not to look into cases that have had court action applied to them even although it was for a different matter - FLA couldn't enforce GE to repay me so I issued court proceedings but GE settled before the hearing.
Is court the only other thing as I am uncertain if my compalint will stand up in court since my signature is on the paperwork?
Have had so many problem with GE over these cards and they have lied to me (told me to contact FO knowing it was a waste of time) that I'm loathe to let them get away with treating customers like that.

m.colak

angelwillow wrote: »

Can anyone help as this is driving me mad!
I have two store cards through GE Money and I am trying to claim the ppi back that I have paid due to the fact that the shop assistant neither told me what the ppi was about nor was even qualified to do so - I wasn't even told it was optional and was told to 'sign here and here'. While I appreciate that I should have looked into it further it was kind of difficult to query it with a large queue behind you so I let it go thinking it was 'the norm'.
FO can't help as GE weren't regulated by them at the time.
FISA say it's nothing to do with them and to contact FO(!)
FLA say I can't claim as I have already put in a claim on these accounts for account charges and it is their policy not to look into cases that have had court action applied to them even although it was for a different matter - FLA couldn't enforce GE to repay me so I issued court proceedings but GE settled before the hearing.
Is court the only other thing as I am uncertain if my compalint will stand up in court since my signature is on the paperwork?
Have had so many problem with GE over these cards and they have lied to me (told me to contact FO knowing it was a waste of time) that I'm loathe to let them get away with treating customers like that.

Its never a waste of time recovering your money all i will say is if you stay persistant they will give up at the end of the day you have the mis representation act where they have to prove that they didn't mis sell. You have the Credit consumer Act where your best interest weren't taken into consideration and you also have the Financial Services and Markets act which you can utilise in combination with either the FSA or GISC to prove that the person wasn't trained properly or that they weren't registered. Remember their are plenty of Act and regulations out there its just a matter of finding the right one and applying it too your case.

angelwillow

Just seems that despite being fined in the past they think they are above reproach!
Thanks for your reply - I won't give up just yet!

Kaia_2

m.colak wrote: »

Sorry i didn't want to make you feel unwelcome you are always welcome mate:D . The PPI interest though is always calculated seperately and by law has to be shown seperately as an amount. Therefore on an agreement you should see loan amount, loan interest, PPI amount and PPI interest.

Mcolak.....mine isnt like that, I have loan amount 18,000....
.................................. .ppi amount....2021.33
.......................... monthly payment ....245.43
.......................................... APR %
........................................ over 180 months.....
...and thats it !!!!........nothing else...
no breakdowns....no total charge for loan........
no amount stated for interest (this is in 2002)
AND NO BOX OPTION FOR NO PPI REQUIRED