PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

di3004

As Tiggrae suggested to add on my further details yesterday, I have done extra on a separate paper for the FOS complaint form, hope this sounds ok ??

I initially made a complaint prior to July 2008 to the firm about mis selling, but this current complaint is now about a "unfair rebate/settlement", but Endeavour appear to unable to have read my recent complaint letters about this, where they appear to be ignoring this complaint.

I have given them the statutory 8 weeks to respond as from July 2008 and they have not replied.

I re-submitted exactly the same letter 14 August 2008 (as the one 30 July 2008).
....................................................................................................
This should be okay for the further details shouldn't it ?
Can you think of anything else ?
Cheers.;)

di3004

Yippeeeeeeeeee

Remember I could find nothing to do with Twopart/Eloan, well having another rummage, hiding in between an old book was the letter from these to say "thank you for doing business with us":j , this is what I needed for the FSCS, so will get scanning now and send this onto them.:D

Oh and this is the letter with their reg number on it which is:
312106.:j

Okay not a lot to get excited with as its not a great deal of money here, but every penny counts, I would say at least a grand or more by the time the stat interest goes on top etc.
Every penny helps.:D

marshallka

Does this sound OK in respect of my settlement of loan complaint to actually sum it up

From what i can tell, our settlement was high for three reasons, front loaded policy, unfair rebate and also use of rule of 78 at settlement. Whatever reasons this was high and certainly not rebated in a fair way as this rule caused a significant imbalance in party’s rights and obligations and was contrary to the requirement of good faith. It was biased to the lender and not in favour of the consumer at all. We had no idea of this being used and how this settlement would be worked and the contract was therefore unfair. We find this to be an unfair penalty charge and certainly not one that only covered the actual admin fees/exit fees and was excessive in relevance and did not represent the true costs incurred.

Tiggrae, could you please take a look.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Does this sound OK in respect of my settlement of loan complaint to actually sum it up

From what i can tell, our settlement was high for three reasons, front loaded policy, unfair rebate and also use of rule of 78 at settlement. Whatever reasons this was high and certainly not rebated in a fair way as this rule caused a significant imbalance in party’s rights and obligations and was contrary to the requirement of good faith. It was biased to the lender and not in favour of the consumer at all. We had no idea of this being used and how this settlement would be worked and the contract was therefore unfair. We find this to be an unfair penalty charge and certainly not one that only covered the actual admin fees/exit fees and was excessive in relevance and did not represent the true costs incurred.

Tiggrae, could you please take a look.

From what I read of it hun, its very good, all points added here, well done!
Am I'm sure Tiggrae will be able to clafify with you at some point today.;)

Just had to re-install my scanner.......:mad: , after all this hard work lol.:D

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

Does this sound OK in respect of my settlement of loan complaint to actually sum it up

From what i can tell, our settlement was high for three reasons, front loaded policy, unfair rebate and also use of rule of 78 at settlement. Whatever reasons this was high and certainly not rebated in a fair way as this rule caused a significant imbalance in party’s rights and obligations and was contrary to the requirement of good faith. It was biased to the lender and not in favour of the consumer at all. We had no idea of this being used and how this settlement would be worked and the contract was therefore unfair. We find this to be an unfair penalty charge and certainly not one that only covered the actual admin fees/exit fees and was excessive in relevance and did not represent the true costs incurred.

Tiggrae, could you please take a look.

From what i can tell, our settlement was high for three reasons, namely
1. front loaded policy,
2. unfair rebate and also
3. use of rule of 78 at settlement.

Whatever reasons the settlement figure was high and we do not believe was rebated in a fair way, as whatever rule used caused a significant imbalance in our rights and obligations and was contrary to the requirement of good faith.

Also, it was biased to the lender and not in our favour, as the consumer. We were given no information regarding how the settlement would be calculated and therefore, we believe the contract to be fundamentally unfair. We think this to be an unfair penalty charge and certainly not one which only covered the actual admin fees/exit fees. It was excessive in relevance and did not represent the true costs incurred.

try that

pinknico

marshallka wrote: »

Have you asked them for a copy of the agreement. Its its ongoing and not closed then they have to supply you with an executed agreement... (signed by you and them).

sections 77-78 CCA 1974 I think they should provide this within 12 days of asking.

77 Duty to give information to debtor under fixed-sum credit agreement

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed-sum credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

(a) the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor;

(b) the total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the debtor but remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due; and

(c) the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of determining the date, when each becomes due.

(2) If the creditor possesses insufficient information to enable him to ascertain the amounts and dates mentioned in subsection (1)(c), he shall be taken to comply with that paragraph if his statement under subsection (1) gives the basis on which, under the regulated agreement, they would fall to be ascertained.


(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to—

(a) an agreement under which no sum is, or will or may become, payable by the debtor, or
(b) a request made less than one month after a previous request under that subsection relating to the same agreement was complied with.


(4) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—
(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.


(5) This section does not apply to a non-commercial agreement.



78 Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—


(a) the state of the account, and

(b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and

(c) the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.


(2) If the creditor possesses insufficient information to enable him to ascertain the amounts and dates mentioned in subsection (1)(c), he shall be taken to comply with that paragraph if his statement under subsection (1) gives the basis on which, under the regulated agreement, they would fall to be ascertained.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to—

(a) an agreement under which no sum is, or will or may become, payable by the debtor, or

(b) a request made less than one month after a previous request under that subsection relating to the same agreement was complied with.


(4) Where running-account credit is provided under a regulated agreement, the creditor shall give the debtor statements in the prescribed form, and with the prescribed contents—

(a) showing according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer, the state of the account at regular intervals of not more than twelve months, and

(b) where the agreement provides, in relation to specified periods, for the making of payments by the debtor, or the charging against him of interest or any other sum, showing according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer the state of the account at the end of each of those periods during which there is any movement in the account.

(5) A statement under subsection (4) shall be given within the prescribed period after the end of the period to which the statement relates.

(6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—
(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

(7) This section does not apply to a non-commercial agreement, and subsections (4) and (5) do not apply to a small agreement.

They have admitted having no credit agreement and cleared my balance and were going to default me even though I have missed no payments and I did not ask them to clear the balance or make it unenforceable ,I will pay what I owe but I wanted it to proove I didn't request the cover. I have complained to the FOS who will send me a form but I don't know what to put in the section which says what would you like the company to do to resolve this?

Pay me my PPI!!!!

chrithefish

Hi All

Has anyone had any success with clamming PPI with a Barclays loan, I sent in my complaint letter in June and I have had many letters since saying they are sorry it is taking a long time but they aim to resolve it soon, I have made many phone calls but no one can tell me anything different, is anyone else stuck in the same situation.

Also I have started a claim with my Egg card, they have already replied telling me that it was my fault that I selected PPI that a paper copy of the terms and conditions were sent to my home address and unless I has any further evidence or information they were considering it case closed. I was going to leave it at that until a read Martins PPI reclaim guide informing me that most online card companies after June 2007 do not use the pre-ticked boxed method for PPI insurance, so you have to physically tick the box to say you want insurance.

I have now sent a letter today informing them that I still believe I was mis-sold my policy and highlighted the fact that you now have to pre select insurance if required and I wasn’t given this option, as in regards to the paper copy of the terms and conditions I never received them

Anyone else in either of these situations

Chris

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

From what i can tell, our settlement was high for three reasons, namely
1. front loaded policy,
2. unfair rebate and also
3. use of rule of 78 at settlement.

Whatever reasons the settlement figure was high and we do not believe was rebated in a fair way, as whatever rule used caused a significant imbalance in our rights and obligations and was contrary to the requirement of good faith.

Also, it was biased to the lender and not in our favour, as the consumer. We were given no information regarding how the settlement would be calculated and therefore, we believe the contract to be fundamentally unfair. We think this to be an unfair penalty charge and certainly not one which only covered the actual admin fees/exit fees. It was excessive in relevance and did not represent the true costs incurred.

try that

Thanks for that Tiggrae but i already sent this

From what i can tell, our settlement was high for three reasons, front loaded policy, unfair rebate and also use of rule of 78 at settlement of which was not stipulated in our terms and conditions and we did not agree of its use in settlement. We found this method like the OFT unfair and oppressive.
Whatever reasons this was high and certainly not rebated in a fair way as this rule caused a significant imbalance in party’s rights and obligations and was contrary to the requirement of good faith. It was biased to the lender and not in favour of the consumer at all. We had no idea of this being used and how this settlement would be worked and the contract was therefore unfair. We find this to be an unfair penalty charge and certainly not one that only covered the actual admin fees/exit fees and was excessive in relevance and did not represent the true costs incurred.




Been posted now 1st class recorded so just have to hope and pray they look into this. If not I have done all i can....

marshallka

pinknico wrote: »

They have admitted having no credit agreement and cleared my balance and were going to default me even though I have missed no payments and I did not ask them to clear the balance or make it unenforceable ,I will pay what I owe but I wanted it to proove I didn't request the cover. I have complained to the FOS who will send me a form but I don't know what to put in the section which says what would you like the company to do to resolve this?

Pay me my PPI!!!!

By clearing the balance they have admitted they were wrong in that they needed this agreement and did not have it. What have you commplained to the FOS about?? Is it about the fact that they have done this??

How much did they clear of your balance without asking you??

marshallka

chrithefish wrote: »

Hi All

Has anyone had any success with clamming PPI with a Barclays loan, I sent in my complaint letter in June and I have had many letters since saying they are sorry it is taking a long time but they aim to resolve it soon, I have made many phone calls but no one can tell me anything different, is anyone else stuck in the same situation.

Also I have started a claim with my Egg card, they have already replied telling me that it was my fault that I selected PPI that a paper copy of the terms and conditions were sent to my home address and unless I has any further evidence or information they were considering it case closed. I was going to leave it at that until a read Martins PPI reclaim guide informing me that most online card companies after June 2007 do not use the pre-ticked boxed method for PPI insurance, so you have to physically tick the box to say you want insurance.

I have now sent a letter today informing them that I still believe I was mis-sold my policy and highlighted the fact that you now have to pre select insurance if required and I wasn’t given this option, as in regards to the paper copy of the terms and conditions I never received them

Anyone else in either of these situations

Chris

If you have waited longer than 8 weeks with Barclays you can now take your complaint to the FOS without the need for a final response. (Barclays seem to do this all the time) You need to send all copies of correspondence received/sent etc.


If Egg have closed the matter and in the letter they have said it is a final response then again you can go the fos with your complaint. If not then write another letter and ask them to give you their final response and state your other reasons etc.(sorry - you already have by the looks of it).