PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

Loulou1513

marshallka wrote: »

If you email then i would email it to the complaints email addy and also tell them that a hard copy has been sent as well.

Lets say that you won this claim, if you won through the Ombudsman then the Ombudsman aims to put people back into the position they would be in if they had not had the PPI at all and also add 8% interest too. If you still have a loan most of the time your loan is rescheduled at this point and the ppi is paid back as a cheque. Some companies have been known to offer the refund and then take the money back and repay off some of the loan with it. Either way you are put back into the position as if you never had the PPI. If the PPI is from a settled loan then they generally pay you a cheque.

Thanks so much for all the help.

tiggrae

Tron_ess wrote: »

Di....
Maybe worth writing to the FSA. If the new firm is regulated - and the directors are "controlled functions" and therefore approved... this may call into question their fitness to hold such status. Its a really really long shot ... but bugs me that they should continue to prosper when they've caused many people knowing misery.

Di this is Section 25 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 regarding Fitness to hold a Licence

25.—(1) A standard licence shall be granted on the application of any person if he
satisfies the Director that—
(a) he is a fit person to engage in activities covered by the licence, and
(b) the name or names under which he applies to be licensed is or are not
misleading or otherwise undesirable.
(2) In determining whether an applicant for a standard licence is a fit person to
engage in any activities, the Director shall have regard to any circumstances
appearing to him to be relevant, and in particular any evidence tending to show
that the applicant, or any of the applicant's employees, agents or associates
(whether past or present) or, where the applicant is a body corporate, any person
appearing to the Director to be a controller of the body corporate or an associate
of any such person, has
(a) committed any offence involving fraud or other dishonesty, or violence,
(b) contravened any provision made by or under this Act, or by or under
any other enactment regulating the provision of credit to individuals or
other transactions with individuals,
(c) practised discrimination on grounds of sex. colour, race or ethnic or
national origins in, or in connection with, the carrying on of any business,
or
(d) engaged in business practices appearing to the Director to be deceitful or
oppressive, or otherwise unfair or improper (whether unlawful or not).
(3) In subsection (2), " associate ", in addition to the persons specified in section
184, includes a business associate.

Loulou1513

marshallka wrote: »

If you email then i would email it to the complaints email addy and also tell them that a hard copy has been sent as well.

Lets say that you won this claim, if you won through the Ombudsman then the Ombudsman aims to put people back into the position they would be in if they had not had the PPI at all and also add 8% interest too. If you still have a loan most of the time your loan is rescheduled at this point and the ppi is paid back as a cheque. Some companies have been known to offer the refund and then take the money back and repay off some of the loan with it. Either way you are put back into the position as if you never had the PPI. If the PPI is from a settled loan then they generally pay you a cheque.

Thanks yet again.!!!

marshallka

Parrot wrote: »

I see. The broker name is E-Loan.co.uk based in essex but i think they are not in business as their numbers are not valid anymore. I wrote to them 2 months ago, no reply. I also sent off an SAR form, the cheque had not come out of my account. Every possible way of contact i have tried and nothing, e-mails ping back too. I am getting worried.

I took the loan out Jan 2004 (not sure the day though)

X

I think Di had something to do with these people. She will be on in a bit. see post 4228 for example.

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

Di this is Section 25 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 regarding Fitness to hold a Licence

25.—(1) A standard licence shall be granted on the application of any person if he
satisfies the Director that—
(a) he is a fit person to engage in activities covered by the licence, and
(b) the name or names under which he applies to be licensed is or are not
misleading or otherwise undesirable.
(2) In determining whether an applicant for a standard licence is a fit person to
engage in any activities, the Director shall have regard to any circumstances
appearing to him to be relevant, and in particular any evidence tending to show
that the applicant, or any of the applicant's employees, agents or associates
(whether past or present) or, where the applicant is a body corporate, any person
appearing to the Director to be a controller of the body corporate or an associate
of any such person, has
(a) committed any offence involving fraud or other dishonesty, or violence,
(b) contravened any provision made by or under this Act, or by or under
any other enactment regulating the provision of credit to individuals or
other transactions with individuals,
(c) practised discrimination on grounds of sex. colour, race or ethnic or
national origins in, or in connection with, the carrying on of any business,
or
(d) engaged in business practices appearing to the Director to be deceitful or
oppressive, or otherwise unfair or improper (whether unlawful or not).
(3) In subsection (2), " associate ", in addition to the persons specified in section
184, includes a business associate.

She has actually written this to them last week and said she was going to get in touch with the OFT about their fitness to hold a licence and is waiting now to get another email back.They have replied to this one in that they will be in touch in a few days. Lets hope they are a little scared now ey...

tiggrae

Parrot wrote: »

I see. The broker name is E-Loan.co.uk based in essex but i think they are not in business as their numbers are not valid anymore. I wrote to them 2 months ago, no reply. I also sent off an SAR form, the cheque had not come out of my account. Every possible way of contact i have tried and nothing, e-mails ping back too. I am getting worried.

I took the loan out Jan 2004 (not sure the day though)

X

aarh right, I could have put money on it being eloans - unfortunately you have a problem - eloans are soon to be declared what is known as 'in default' and all claims against them will be dealt with by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) unfortunately, the FSCS can only look at complaints if the mis selling took place after 15.01.2005 so they wouldn't be able to consider yours - however, this company should have had insurance for professional indemnity, you need to do some research to find out who eloans receivers are and write to them regarding eloans insurers and make a claim against them!

Parrot

tiggrae wrote: »

aarh right, I could have put money on it being eloans - unfortunately you have a problem - eloans are soon to be declared what is known as 'in default' and all claims against them will be dealt with by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) unfortunately, the FSCS can only look at complaints if the mis selling took place after 15.01.2005 so they wouldn't be able to consider yours - however, this company should have had insurance for professional indemnity, you need to do some research to find out who eloans receivers are and write to them regarding eloans insurers and make a claim against them!

Oh no, you're joking!:eek:

How do you find out about who someone's recievers?

marshallka

Parrot wrote: »

Oh no, you're joking!:eek:

How do you find out about who someone's recievers?

Di will be back on soon and will have all the info or at least know where its up to i would think. Hold tight a bit....

marshallka

Tiggrae, did you see the post about the person from the 1992 claim that was giving up.

What advice would you give them not to give up just in case they log back on. I thought the courts were the only option and that maybe the limitations act would win. You told them not to give up.. I hope they do come back on. I did not say that they would not be able to complain, just that i thought that they would claim its just tooo old and maybe a risk of the limitations act in court.

lakelander post above

marshallka

No-one seems to have heard from the FOS in ages. Have they perhaps gone into liquidation maybe (LOL).

Should you have an update every month even if the claim has not gone to an adjudicator.