PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

pinknico

di3004 wrote: »

Cheers hunni - a month after Twopart/Eloan then ?:rolleyes:

Did receive a letter last week from the FSCS, at the time they added on their letter "Not in default" have not checked the updates yet though on the site if done yet .

Its all time consuming isn't it hun ?:rolleyes:

I had to send further evidence to FSCS which I sent by email attachment yesterday, you are allowed to do this as they confirmed this by email, so hun if you anything further to send them do this by email attachment and not to forget your FSCS ref number.;)

Have you heard anything from the FSCS yet hunni ?

Not a word!

marshallka

Tiggrae, did you see my post that included M colak calculations for unfair rebate and also your own post from back in May about unfair rebate and Firstplus. I wondered if you could give me some sort of idea what i am expecting back from them if i win with this one as I have no idea of the amounts. Both you and M colak did me some figures.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Thank you Tiggrae understand what you were saying. I just wonder how many people on here have made decisions when they are not mentally able to do so. Eg. OCD Obsessive Compulisve Disorder where people are obsessed in spending money or have spent money and needing to pay it back. Stress, Depression etc etc. Just talking as Mental Health Nurse and was just another thing to thind about.

Is that what you used to do then maxdp or still do??

tiggrae

maxdp wrote: »

Thank you Tiggrae understand what you were saying. I just wonder how many people on here have made decisions when they are not mentally able to do so. Eg. OCD Obsessive Compulisve Disorder where people are obsessed in spending money or have spent money and needing to pay it back. Stress, Depression etc etc. Just talking as Mental Health Nurse and was just another thing to thind about.

there's also this

Misrepresentation Act 1967 s2(1) as they breached Consumer Credit Act 1974. "A clause in the contract which states that a signature indicates full acceptance is not valid where it would be unlikely that the customer would have the skill and inclination to go through the fine detail". See case Howard Maine v A Ogden 1975.

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

Tiggrae, did you see my post that included M colak calculations for unfair rebate and also your own post from back in May about unfair rebate and Firstplus. I wondered if you could give me some sort of idea what i am expecting back from them if i win with this one as I have no idea of the amounts. Both you and M colak did me some figures.

it really is difficult to say because of what the FSA have said about firms being able to charge 'reasonable costs' so long as you know how much you're out of pocket by and can compare it to how much is offered (if an offer is made) then will be able to decide what you believe to be reasonable.

As it stands at the moment there is no calculation guidelines for 'reasonable costs' - but FP always offer 78% of the PPI, without taking into consideration any interest, but it's down to each individual to decide whether they believe this to be a fair amount !!!

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

there's also this

Misrepresentation Act 1967 s2(1) as they breached Consumer Credit Act 1974. "A clause in the contract which states that a signature indicates full acceptance is not valid where it would be unlikely that the customer would have the skill and inclination to go through the fine detail". See case Howard Maine v A Ogden 1975.

How does that one work when its a joint loan and one would pass this test and the other not??

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

How does that one work when its a joint loan and one would pass this test and the other not??

absolutely no idea - but I think if you were a professionally qualified solicitor I don't think you would get away with it - you would be expected to be sufficiently qualified to read the small print

if you're a qualified accountant and you made a mistake on your tax form you face automatic imprisonment -

but if you're not professionally qualified you could say 'I don't have the skill or inclination to read the small print'

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

absolutely no idea

Does the one of sound body and mind then become their brothers keeper??

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

Does the one of sound body and mind then become their brothers keeper??

Lord, I would hate to become mine - he's just fallen off his horse and broken his hip - moaning a bucket full !!!

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

Lord, I would hate to become mine - he's just fallen off his horse and broken his him - moaning a bucket full !!!

LOL.

I was really meaning more to maxdp's post about the mental act and if one is suffering from mental issues and the other is not then who is responsible for the other in law. Would you be able to use that act or would the other supposed to explain the lot to the one with issues.