PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

pinknico

marshallka wrote: »

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??[/quote

They cleared £500 which would be great if they hadn't said they would be speaking to the credit agencies.I don't need a default I have never defaulted or missed a payment. I know they shouldn,t default but I've been told companys are a law unto themselves and it is hard work getting it removed.
They are trying to blackmail me to sign another credit agreement because if I do they will unclear the balance and take no action with the credit agencies. At the end of this they gave the address for the FOS IF i wasn't happy which I wasn't as they are really messing me about with cleared balances and threats of Default, so I will get the FOS to sort out what they can or can't do.

westie666

marshallka wrote: »

Was there PPI on the new agreement or not. As this was a single premium then you would have paid interest on this as well and who was this with??

Marshallka,

There is no PPI on new agreement (i got new agreement after cancelling previous). The Loan + PPI was paid in one payment to Alliance and Leister, when the new agreement came through, the loan amount stayed the same, and the payment per month stayed the same, but the PPI had been removed.....now I think about it, i've been diddled!!!!!!

originally - loan + PPI = 60@ £241
now - loan = 59@ £241

I really DONT think PPI was £241 over 60 months !!!!

What does others think!

W666

tiggrae

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

they're just standard fob off letters - make a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman - 1 against barclays as they should have completed their investigatins within 8 weeks - 2 against egg as you've now got their final response

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

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....

just a thought - was this for your loan settlement or PPI ??

marshallka

westie666 wrote: »

Marshallka,

There is no PPI on new agreement (i got new agreement after cancelling previous). The Loan + PPI was paid in one payment to Alliance and Leister, when the new agreement came through, the loan amount stayed the same, and the payment per month stayed the same, but the PPI had been removed.....now I think about it, i've been diddled!!!!!!

originally - loan + PPI = 60@ £241
now - loan = 59@ £241

I really DONT think PPI was £241 over 60 months !!!!

What does others think!

W666

Tiggrae, what do you think of this one...

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

just a thought - was this for your loan settlement or PPI ??

Loan settlement and i have put loan settlement on the complaint form

why????? You're worrying me now?????

I rang the FOS and asked about it and they said to send in another complaint if this was about the loan???

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

Loan settlement and i have put loan settlement on the complaint form

why????? You're worrying me now?????

I rang the FOS and asked about it and they said to send in another complaint if this was about the loan???

no it's just you'de put in about a front end loaded policy - that's why I thought it was for the PPI

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

Tiggrae, what do you think of this one...

I think the policy was probably cancelled 'out of time' (ie beyond 30 days or whatever was within the terms and conditions) and they've calculated the outstanding amount in some bizarre way probably using fairy dust, given about £2.50 as a settlement figure and then transferred the outstanding balance to the new loan

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

no it's just you'de put in about a front end loaded policy - that's why I thought it was for the PPI

I really do not know why our settlement was so high. FIrstplus always tried to make out it was because of the rule 78 when i rang them years ago and then it was only now that i realised about these policies and being front loaded. I never heard of front loaded policies. I have written my other complaint number on the notes attached so they can see. I am not a consumer credit expert and therefore did not know why this settlement was high and certainly would not have entertained a secured loan with use of the rule 78 had I known how this worked. (I thought it was like a mortgage type thing). Also it never said anything about it in the terms and conditions so i have challenged it. I don't know if this is anything I can challenge but it never mentioned it in the t and c's.

What do you think Tiggrae???

Worth a shot or what??

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

I really do not know why our settlement was so high. FIrstplus always tried to make out it was because of the rule 78 when i rang them years ago and then it was only now that i realised about these policies and being front loaded. I never heard of front loaded policies. I have written my other complaint number on the notes attached so they can see. I am not a consumer credit expert and therefore did not know why this settlement was high and certainly would not have entertained a secured loan with use of the rule 78 had I known how this worked. (I thought it was like a mortgage type thing). Also it never said anything about it in the terms and conditions so i have challenged it. I don't know if this is anything I can challenge but it never mentioned it in the t and c's.

What do you think Tiggrae???

Worth a shot or what??

a front end loaded policy means an insurance policy which has been added onto a loan - it means you pay the insurance off before the loan capital - as long as you explained on the claim form about the ppi and that's why your loan settlement was low it'll be fine