PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

:j Been assigned an adjudicator for my Co-op claim and apparently the other loans too may be ok to put into question. He did say that he requested info from Co-op and they have not replied to him. He says that is unusual in that they usually comply with this but he has sent them a nudge again. I just hope i win now. (you have to think positive)

How long after this stage is the complaint sorted now. I know i advise on this forum but no idea how long it all takes from the actual adjudicator.

Wow great news at last.........:T :T :j :beer: , brilliant, that's made my day......:D :j .
Phew that's a bit of a weight lifted from you then hun ?:D

So did you ring or was it by letter you were told this ?

Oh they will more or less deal with this case straight away now hun once in with the adjudicator, that is going from my experience, so it could be weeks, if this gets too complex it will take longer, I would say you should have this resolved by xmas, but hopefully before.
Just think though Christmas is really not that far away lol.

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

:j Been assigned an adjudicator for my Co-op claim and apparently the other loans too may be ok to put into question. He did say that he requested info from Co-op and they have not replied to him. He says that is unusual in that they usually comply with this but he has sent them a nudge again. I just hope i win now. (you have to think positive)

How long after this stage is the complaint sorted now. I know i advise on this forum but no idea how long it all takes from the actual adjudicator.

it usually takes about 6 weeks - longer if the business drags it heels over providing information

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Wow great news at last.........:T :T :j :beer: , brilliant, that's made my day......:D :j .
Phew that's a bit of a weight lifted from you then hun ?:D

So did you ring or was it by letter you were told this ?

Oh they will more or less deal with this case straight away now hun once in with the adjudicator, that is going from my experience, so it could be weeks, if this gets too complex it will take longer, I would say you should have this resolved by xmas, but hopefully before.
Just think though Christmas is really not that far away lol.

Yeah, they rang me just as i had grabbed the phone to ring them:cool:

He did keep saying you have had your chance to explain, now its their chance. He asked me when i became aware of misselling and i said that i had always assumed these to be the norm as each time we had a loan we had it applied and that it was only april this year after media attention that i became aware that it was not compulsory.

I won't get my hopes up though as sometimes the banks do win but they were all single premiums and all paid early too.

I have today received my SAR from the Co-op too. A bit late but got it now and it just makes me think what fools we were to pay these amounts.

If all four (yeah right) are taken into consideration (the ombudsman said that it goes on when you became aware of it, or the six year rule or the 3 year rule) we could get a good christmas without worrying for once. I put in my letter to both co-op and the ombudsman that we feel we were missold on all 4 policies but that the first two would be outside the jurisdiction of the FOS. Lets hope i was wrong but if one is missold then all four are too but i think after reading the dates etc then maybe the first will get thrown out. Have to wait and see.

di3004

Now I am confused again, this time its regarding TWOPART/ELOAN.

Just had 2 letters through the post, the one from FSCS and the other Begbies & Traynor regarding liquidation on these:

First one here from FSCS

Letter dated 10 Sept

Dear Mr & Mrs

TWOPART LIMITED - NOT IN DEFAULT

Thank you for returning your application form in relation to your claim for compensation against the above firm.

Unfortunatly, we require further information in order to process your claim.
Please provide

. Any documents from TWOPART Limited as having evidence of having with dealt with the firm.

. Please explain how the sale of the PPI/LOAN took place, for example face to face or over the phone.

If you have any questions about this letter, please contact our customer service team.

Yours sincerely

Administration Assistant.

..............................................................................................
Now Begbies & Traynor (liquidators).

Dated 8 September 2008

Mr & Mrs Evans

RE: TWOPART LIMITED T/A E-LOAN.CO.UK - IN LIQUIDATION

Thank you for your email received in relation to the above matter.

I would request that you please complete the original creditor claim form and return it to me in order to note that any claim that you may have against the company.

I trust that this information is of assistance

Yours faithfully

Joint Liquidator.
................................................................................................

I must have emailed them a while ago because I cannot even remember with so many things going on, so where now, because to what I know should it be the liquidators we should be claiming from and/or the FSCS, now that they are asking for more evidence.

I am stumped here because the evidence I did sent had all TWOPART/ELOAN documents enclosed, and that was the agreement etc.
Wouldn't that have been enough evidence, and all that was squashed in the large envelope the FSCS provided.:rolleyes:

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Now I am confused again, this time its regarding TWOPART/ELOAN.

Just had 2 letters through the post, the one from FSCS and the other Begbies & Traynor regarding liquidation on these:

First one here from FSCS

Letter dated 10 Sept

Dear Mr & Mrs

TWOPART LIMITED - NOT IN DEFAULT

Thank you for returning your application form in relation to your claim for compensation against the above firm.

Unfortunatly, we require further information in order to process your claim.
Please provide

. Any documents from TWOPART Limited as having evidence of having with dealt with the firm.

. Please explain how the sale of the PPI/LOAN took place, for example face to face or over the phone.

If you have any questions about this letter, please contact our customer service team.

Yours sincerely

Administration Assistant.

..............................................................................................
Now Begbies & Traynor (liquidators).

Dated 8 September 2008

Mr & Mrs Evans

RE: TWOPART LIMITED T/A E-LOAN.CO.UK - IN LIQUIDATION

Thank you for your email received in relation to the above matter.

I would request that you please complete the original creditor claim form and return it to me in order to note that any claim that you may have against the company.

I trust that this information is of assistance

Yours faithfully

Joint Liquidator.
................................................................................................

I must have emailed them a while ago because I cannot even remember with so many things going on, so where now, because to what I know should it be the liquidators we should be claiming from and/or the FSCS, now that they are asking for more evidence.

I am stumped here because the evidence I did sent had all TWOPART/ELOAN documents enclosed, and that was the agreement etc.
Wouldn't that have been enough evidence, and all that was squashed in the large envelope the FSCS provided.:rolleyes:

I take it you have the originals etc. Did you send the documents to the FSCS about two part and also the liquidators as well . Are they saying that E loan is separate from these perhaps.

Ring them and claify what they need. Are you supposed to claim against the liquidators perhaps and not FSCS??

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

I take it you have the originals etc. Did you send the documents to the FSCS about two part and also the liquidators as well . Are they saying that E loan is separate from these perhaps.

Ring them and claify what they need. Are you supposed to claim against the liquidators perhaps and not FSCS??

I am stumped here hun..... , this is what I would like to know.
So I will have to try and get in touch.

The documents we do have have both Twopart and Eloan on them and the address.
I have sent everything I have because if you remember I did request a SAR, with that it was not Twopart or eloan that sent back my £10 cheque and a letter, it was them from Begbies and Traynor to inform me that they were unable to provide a SAR where we enclose and return your cheque as the company went into liquidation..... and they were acting for these now.

So what else can I provide, there is nothing else ?
And it was sold over the phone, that's an easy one, but I also added that on the forms sent to the FSCS too ??

If I was provided with the SAR then I would have been able to provide them with possibly more evidence, but there is nothing I can do if the company is no longer running ??

I am surprised they did not pick up on this on the information I enclosed with the form, there was also a copy of the letter from begbies & Traynor with that information above.

di3004

Companies house _Twopart limited

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/a91726fa31aa81f71b9969b4dbf7fdb5/compdetails

zeblet

zeblet wrote: »

I have amended POC to the following :


Claim No: ***********


IN THE LOWESTOFT COUNTY COURT

BETWEEN: -

******************
and

LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC



_________________________________
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
________________________________



1. The Claimant opened a Consumer Credit Agreements with Lloyds TSB Bank PLC on ***** The account number is *******, which was a credit agreement with a total of £***** . I will refer to this as the “Agreement”.


2. The Agreement included Payment Protection Insurance (“PPI”) which was taken out at the same time.


3. The Claimant contends that the PPI relating to the Agreement, was only purchased as a result of pressure and misleading andr incorrect advice given by the “the Manager” employed by Lloyds TSB Bank PLC.

4. The Office of Fair Trading states that “PPI protects borrowers' ability to maintain repayments and should help them avoid getting into debt should they be unable to keep up their repayments due to accident, sickness or unemployment.” The Claimant contends that the PPI sold in relation to the Agreement was never capable of meeting those requirements, and that both policies were missold.


5. The Claimant contends that the PPI relating to the Agreement was not suitable for purpose because the claimant was on long term sick leave at the time of signing the document and informed the member of staff at that time but was not informed that any pre-existing illness would not be covered by the policy. Also the claimant had previously suffered depression due to the loss of several very close relatives of which the staff member was aware and was not informed the policy did not cover such a condition.


6. The Claimant believes that a reasonable level of care and skill was not offered to the Claimant by the Manager during the sales process, and that therefore [the company] failed to meet its obligations under the terms of section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.


7. The Claimant believes it is inconceivable that a person, occupying a management position within a multi-national company specialising in personal finance, would not have been given full training in the eligibility requirements for a product that provides a considerable boost to its profitability through commission and interest.


8. On the basis of this, and further contentions outlined below, the Claimant believes that the advice given by the Manager was in fact fraudulent, and therefore a breach of common law, in that the representation of the product’s suitability was either made (1) knowingly, or (2) without belief in its truth, or (3) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. I refer the court to the judgement given by Lord Herschell (Derry v Peak (1889) 14 App Cas 337).


9. The Claimant contends that the Manager was made fully aware of the employment positionandpre-existing conditionof the Claimant, and should have had the necessary training and experience to know that the policy was not suitable.


10. The Claimant also contends that there should have been a system of supervision and checking in place to ensure that such errors, omissions and misrepresentations were noticed, and corrective action taken, and if there was no such system in place, then that should also be considered as a failure of Lloyds TSB bank PLC, to meet its obligations under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.


11. The Claimant contends that it was never explained that the PPI would attract interest.

12. Notwithstanding that the forms were signed, and in any respect, the Claimant contends that there was an entitlement to expect that the advice and information given was true and honest, and that a reasonable level of care and skill would be given to ensure that the best interests of the customer were being met.



13. In considering this, and all matters in this claim, the Claimant asks the court to take into account the following Principles of Business which are legally binding on Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, under the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000, and are contained in the FSA Handbook:

Principle 1 Integrity - A firm must conduct its business with integrity.


Principle 2 Skill, care and diligence - A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence.


Principle 3 Management and control - A firm must take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems.


Principle 5 Market conduct - A firm must observe proper standards of market conduct.


Principle 6 Customers' interests - A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.


Principle 7 Communications with clients - A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading.


Principle 8 Conflicts of interest - A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client.


Principle 9 Customers: relationships of trust - A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgmen




14. The Claimant seeks damages and other sums, as listed below, against the Defendant under Common Law, and/or section 2 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967.

Refund of PPI premiums paid £***** plus contractual interest.




The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true.


Signed:


Date:


Please would you advise if this now ok. Thanks so much. I have to take it to court by 4 pm today. Thursday

The court is 25 miles away so need help asap

di3004

zeblet wrote: »

The court is 25 miles away so need help asap

Hi hun and golly........:eek: 25 miles away ??

Have you a train service that may run straight through ?
If you don't mind me asking what is the name of the actual court ?;)
Thx
xx

tiggrae

zeblet wrote: »

The court is 25 miles away so need help asap

hi there, did respond earlier to say the POC was OK - you probably missed it