PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

I would not add about rule 78 as this confuses them apparently. Its makes it look like a loan complaint and not just the ppi. Thats what tiggrae told me. I have not said much only just unfair rebate of a ppi policy.

Yes cheers hun I did not bother in the end, cos that did enter my mind.

What about any parts from here?

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/consumer/tackle/ppi.shtml

marshallka

In fact Di this is what i rang them about this morning. I asked the lady and she said to send in another complaint. I sometimes think though these people that answer the phone do not have the knowledge to answer some questions as at first she said to add it my other complaint and then when i explained it she then said to send in another complaint. I am going to do another just in case. Its so confusing. I wish they would understand.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

In fact Di this is what i rang them about this morning. I asked the lady and she said to send in another complaint. I sometimes think though these people that answer the phone do not have the knowledge to answer some questions as at first she said to add it my other complaint and then when i explained it she then said to send in another complaint. I am going to do another just in case. Its so confusing. I wish they would understand.

So what your saying is you already have one in about this one but you yet have to do another ?

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

So what your saying is you already have one in about this one but you yet have to do another ?

I first asked about the complaint i had in and asked about the fast track. She said there was a note on the account and then i asked about the rule 78. She then said that that would be in the complaint i had put in. I then said i had already complained about this but it was against Firstplus and not Barclays trading as FIrstplus and it was thrown back as they did not have jurisidiction. I then said that obviously it was thought of as not an insurance complaint (Firstplus were member of the GISC in 2001) as they stated that they only became under jurisdiction in 2005. I then said that i wanted to add about the settlement of the actual loan and not just the rebate of the PPI as this was unfair. She then said to send in another. I don't think she really understood and i could not have put this any clearer yet again. The settlement was high because of the poor refund of the PPI and the fact that my policy was front end loaded and also rule 78 so don't know what to complain about.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

I first asked about the complaint i had in and asked about the fast track. She said there was a note on the account and then i asked about the rule 78. She then said that that would be in the complaint i had put in. I then said i had already complained about this but it was against Firstplus and not Barclays trading as FIrstplus and it was thrown back as they did not have jurisidiction. I then said that obviously it was thought of as not an insurance complaint (Firstplus were member of the GISC in 2001) as they stated that they only became under jurisdiction in 2005. I then said that i wanted to add about the settlement of the actual loan and not just the rebate of the PPI as this was unfair. She then said to send in another. I don't think she really understood and i could not have put this any clearer yet again. The settlement was high because of the poor refund of the PPI and the fact that my policy was front end loaded and also rule 78 so don't know what to complain about.

Make a note of this hun, and add this to your form, I am also photocopying my letter we received from the FOS to the form, so they will know what is what.
But yes I really think they don't really understand what we are trying to get at....... , yes you do really need to reclaim yours back, its quite a bit on yours to do so.....;)

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Make a note of this hun, and add this to your form, I am also photocopying my letter we received from the FOS to the form, so they will know what is what.
But yes I really think they don't really understand what we are trying to get at....... , yes you do really need to reclaim yours back, its quite a bit on yours to do so.....;)

I have added notes about my other complaint and also unfair terms in consumer contracts 1999 about the contract term of early settlement. If its another complaint then fair enough but i have also added the note of the other complaint.

di3004

I need to continue on separate paper to explain the predicament here of Endeavour, to make sure the FOS do not confuse this matter with the mis selling, I do really need to make a point here, even though by enclosing a copy of the FOS letter should still cover me.
Am going to go to my bank account online to print off my latest bank statement, in order to request fast tracking here, this will also disclose that my hubby is on sick leave with not a lot coming in.;)

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

I have added notes about my other complaint and also unfair terms in consumer contracts 1999 about the contract term of early settlement. If its another complaint then fair enough but i have also added the note of the other complaint.

Good.;)
So should I also enclose anything to do with "unfair terms in consumer contracts 1999" ?

Isn't that on that link I added earlier ?
Cheers hun, my head is all over the shop now lol......:o

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

I need to continue on separate paper to explain the predicament here of Endeavour, to make sure the FOS do not confuse this matter with the mis selling, I do really need to make a point here, even though by enclosing a copy of the FOS letter should still cover me.
Am going to go to my bank account online to print off my latest bank statement, in order to request fast tracking here, this will also disclose that my hubby is on sick leave with not a lot coming in.;)

I asked and asked and still only notes on the accounts. I asked again today and she said there are notes on the accounts but had a letter friday to say that its going to be some time before we can look into this for you. It seems like i will just have to wait but they did say that they had requested details from FIrstplus so that makes me think maybe they will fast track. I don't ever get a firm reply from anything. I know they are busy but sometimes its just so annoying when they don't reply. I only want to be sure its being looked into.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Good.;)
So should I also enclose anything to do with "unfair terms in consumer contracts 1999" ?

Isn't that on that link I added earlier ?
Cheers hun, my head is all over the shop now lol......:o

Unfair terms is to do with an actual contract. Its the contract itself that has to be unfair. On Firstplus's contract about the insurance it states that on early settlement of the PPI that "you will NOT get a rebate in proportion to what your policy was and that it will be calculated using rule 78 instead. That is an unfair term of the contract.

My unfair settlement is about the contract again in that on the LOAN contract it states that early settlement you will get a statutory rebate but does not state that this will be using rule 78 which is deemed as unfair and oppressive to the consumer and that is why they banned it. Its only fair to the lender.

You can only use unfair terms in contracts if you find a term in the contract that you find unfair.

---

The rule of 78 has long been regarded as unfair by consumer organisations, and the OFT has described it as ‘unfair and oppressive’. It has been outlawed in respect of consumer credit loans since May 2005 but it can still apply in the case of unregulated loans. There does, however, have to be a term in the loan agreement whereby the borrower agrees to the use of the rule of 78 on an early redemption.

Importantly, we now have a reported case in which the High Court has decided that such an agreement fell foul of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs 1999, and was thus void. In that particular case, the loan had been for £105,000, but when the borrower wanted to redeem the mortgage 18 months later, the rule of 78 calculation gave the lender a windfall of £34,000. But, that £34,000 charge has now been held to be unlawful.