PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

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.

Exactly.
I know they have high volumes of complaints but surely someone in the consultant area could be of some help here .
Its ridiculas waiting a very long time just for one question !!!

I am hoping mine will go through on fast track also, good luck with yours too hun, hope they push this through for you.
If they have requested for some further information from FP then in my opinion they are already dealing with your complaint hopefully.;)

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

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.

Arh I see.
In my case the part that got to me was
"Please note that if you settle early before the settlement date you may be entitled to a refund"

Okay I had no refund, not in money, only in a "part rebate", and settling into 16 months of a 300 month loan, well how soon have you got to settle to see any form of refund ???

Here on my policy it states
"The Rebate has been calculated in accordance with the Consumer credit (rebate on early settlement) Regulations 1983.

di3004

My mate came across this link and I'm sure she won't mind me adding it here but its quite interesting I thought.;)

http://www.moneyknowhow.co.uk/news_loans_135_10.html

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Arh I see.
In my case the part that got to me was
"Please note that if you settle early before the settlement date you may be entitled to a refund"

Okay I had no refund, not in money, only in a "part rebate", and settling into 16 months of a 300 month loan, well how soon have you got to settle to see any form of refund ???

Here on my policy it states
"The Rebate has been calculated in accordance with the Consumer credit (rebate on early settlement) Regulations 1983.

My loan agreement does not state in accordance to any regulations. It states in accordance to the consumer credit act 1974.

Yours is completely different to a Firstplus contract as i showed you yesterday and that is why like Laini stated the FOS think their terms and conditions are horrendous. Our actually state that we would get a refund NOT in propotion. It did not state the actual cost of the policy at onset like yours did and they also do not give you a cancellation period of the insurance. Its only the 7 days as per the agreement and from what i can tell if you have life insurance on this (as we did) then they should allow you 28 days to cancel. On our agreement it states that if PPI is taken (which is typed in anyway) then this will be paid as soon as the agreement is taken, thus you only have the 7 days on the agreement to cancel. Another unfair term here.

racheldazo

Hi Tiggrae, just wondering what do you think i should do with regards M&S loan 2000, the ppi value to me is £5500 roughly, should i wait and see what there reply is, as the letter i received from them wasnt a final letter, i have emailed them to ask them to look at it again. Do you know roughly what the cost of the court would be for a small claims? And do you think it would be worth taking to court?
thanks for your help
Rachel

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

My loan agreement does not state in accordance to any regulations. It states in accordance to the consumer credit act 1974.

Yours is completely different to a Firstplus contract as i showed you yesterday and that is why like Laini stated the FOS think their terms and conditions are horrendous. Our actually state that we would get a refund NOT in propotion. It did not state the actual cost of the policy at onset like yours did and they also do not give you a cancellation period of the insurance. Its only the 7 days as per the agreement and from what i can tell if you have life insurance on this (as we did) then they should allow you 28 days to cancel. On our agreement it states that if PPI is taken (which is typed in anyway) then this will be paid as soon as the agreement is taken, thus you only have the 7 days on the agreement to cancel. Another unfair term here.

Yes that is very unfair.

I cannot find anything at all to do with cancelling this on my agreement.

Consumer Credit Act 1974 covers this agreement and lays down certain requirements for your protection which must be satisfied when the agreement is made.
If they are not, we cannot enforce the agreement against you without a court order.

The Act gives you a number of rights.
You have the rights to settle the agreement by anytime by giving notice in writing and paying off all amounts payable under the agreement which may be reduced by the rebate. If you have obtained unsatisfactory goods or services under a transaction financed by this agreement apart from any purchased out of a cash loan, you may have the right to sue the supplier, us or both.
Similarly, if the contract is not fulfilled, perhaps because of the supplier has gone out of business, you may still be able to sue us.

Golly there is more but will need a magnifying glass to see it lol.

I note they mention if the supplier has gone out of business then we may sue, then I'm sure Click would come into this wouldn't they then ?
Meanings as they were the broker who arranged this ?
Okay still trading but they have run from this responsibility ???

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Arh I see.
In my case the part that got to me was
"Please note that if you settle early before the settlement date you may be entitled to a refund"

Okay I had no refund, not in money, only in a "part rebate", and settling into 16 months of a 300 month loan, well how soon have you got to settle to see any form of refund ???

Here on my policy it states
"The Rebate has been calculated in accordance with the Consumer credit (rebate on early settlement) Regulations 1983.

You may be entitled to a refund is neither fair nor unfair really. They are not stating that it will not be in proportion. You got a refund from them and so it was not a nil refund. It cost you £800 over 16 months and also the refund of the loan was not that bad as i showed you yesterday. You did not get a refund of the ppi in money as they only charged you a little bit for it. I think your settlement was calculated using rule 78 and also had charges for redeeming early. I really don't think its to do with unfair rebate of the PPI here but ask tiggrae to confirm. They did not calculate the PPI in the rule 78 here.

I can do a calculation of what it would be like if they had and post in a min.


16 52221.55 376.21 -4.21 52225.76 6177.76 53422.24

If you see this what you would have been charged



This is if before you refinanced with them they had not given you a rebate of the PPI and also if they had used the rule of 78 on both the loan and the PPI.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

You may be entitled to a refund is neither fair nor unfair really. They are not stating that it will not be in proportion. You got a refund from them and so it was not a nil refund. It cost you £800 over 16 months and also the refund of the loan was not that bad as i showed you yesterday. You did not get a refund of the ppi in money as they only charged you a little bit for it. I think your settlement was calculated using rule 78 and also had charges for redeeming early. I really don't think its to do with unfair rebate of the PPI here but ask tiggrae to confirm. They did not calculate the PPI in the rule 78 here.

I can do a calculation of what it would be like if they had and post in a min.

The £800 was the Eloan/Nemo complaint, this one now I am on about is that of Endeavour taken out in 2004 and settled in Nov 2005 lol.......:D

Endeavour is the form I'm filling in now for the unfair rebate:

Credit Agreement
regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974

Taken out July 2004 Settled 30 November 2005.

This loan was for £21,000 over 300 months
ppi £2835.00
Total = £23835.00

To settle after 16 months
was that of = £23646.04

Pqrt rebate of:
£1,553.59.

marshallka

Di think you were on about endeavour and not the nemo one weren't you and i though it was about the other nemo one.

di3004

This was the letter Tiggrae helped me with here and M Colak done the calculations of this.

Unfair Rebate Settlement/Account policy number –

Dear Sirs

I am writing in regards of an ‘Unfair Rebate Settlement’ in November 2005.
Account Number XXXXXXXX

Only a fraction/Part portion of the rebate of £1533.69 was deducted within the settlement calculations and it was not explained how the rebate was actually calculated, such as for example the loan, payment protection insurance or both.
The full amount of settlement to settle this was £23,646.04, yet I note that an amount of £26565.18 was received of the full payments received to you on a policy of £23,835.00, because the loan amount was £21,000 and the payment protection insurance was that of £2835.00.

All the above is proven on the paperwork received within a Subject Access request that was provided Endeavour Personal Finance to me.

I believe this was an ‘unfair rebate’ considering the 25 year policy was taken over 25 years and settled the year after. I believe I was deprived of this money.

I have sought further information about ‘Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, through the ‘Office of Fair Trading, this came onto force October 1999 as the Unfair terms of Consumer Terms of Contracts regulations 1994 are herby revoke.
I am also aware that the FSA rules that firms should give a fair refund.

I was not given a refund only a part portion of a rebate settlement as stated on your letter, yet your Endeavour paperwork states, ‘if settle early you may be entitled to a refund’ this is my opinion is not a rebate, and could be read as mis-leading by consumers, such as myself for that matter.
I do not feel I was treated fairly, and would appreciate it if you could uphold my complaint and refund me the amount worked out of approximately £3722.68, and 8% of what a court would award.
If this is not resolved or upheld in 14 days of this letter due to the unfair settlement conditions, I will be forced to complain to the Financial Service Ombudsman, who will be able to investigate this on the grounds of Unfair Settlement Rebates.

I look forward to receiving your response within 14 days of this letter.


Yours faithfully