PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

m.colak

walkingstar wrote: »

Okay that sounds good. Thanks. Option 2 is probably the way forwarded as i have gone this far.

The following was what i filled in on moneyclaim

That PPI insurance was sold to me and the
full particulars were not disclosed, namely
existing medical conditions under Section 2
(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967
Provides: Where a person has entered
into a contract after a misrepresentation
has been made to him by another party
thereto and as a result thereof he has
suffered loss, then, if the person making
the misrepresentation would be liable to
damages in respect thereof had the
misrepresentation been made fraudulently,
that person shall be so liable
notwithstanding that the misrepresentation
was not made fraudulently unless he proves
that he had reasonable ground to believe
and did believe up to the time the contract
was made that the facts represented were
true. The claimant claims interest under
section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at
the rate of 8% a year from 31st October
2003 to 8th April 2008 of £2133.09 and also
interest at the same rate up tothe date of

judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate.

They have defended the whole thing which is not surprising given their conduct over the life of this loan.

Ok have to applied for a SAR under CPR 18.1 (Court Proceeding Rule) request for information pertaining to your case. This will contain information such as your original terms and conditions of your loan in direct relation to your exsisting medical case. Plus it will have any notes taken by the person whom sold you the loan directly pertaining to anything he noted about your previous medical conditions. Then when you send in your notes and letters tomorrow include the fact that you have requested the information and it directly effects your case. This will give you a little breathing space and allow you to find the exact parts that support your case.

walkingstar

m.colak wrote: »

Ok have to applied for a SAR under CPR 18.1 (Court Proceeding Rule) request for information pertaining to your case. This will contain information such as your original terms and conditions of your loan in direct relation to your exsisting medical case. Plus it will have any notes taken by the person whom sold you the loan directly pertaining to anything he noted about your previous medical conditions. Then when you send in your notes and letters tomorrow include the fact that you have requested the information and it directly effects your case. This will give you a little breathing space and allow you to find the exact parts that support your case.

Thanks. Two questions.

1).Where do i apply for the SAR.

2). This loan was sold over the internet so does the SAR apply

regards
P.s. i really appreciate this.

m.colak

walkingstar wrote: »

Thanks. Two questions.

1).Where do i apply for the SAR.

2). This loan was sold over the internet so does the SAR apply

regards
P.s. i really appreciate this.

Ok a SAR is a service account request and a template for this is on post #219. It doesn't matter if the loan was over the internet and to be honest it probably helps your case that it was as the rules for internet selling have got more tighter including the ruling on over reliance by companies selling/explaining PPI via post, which should work in your favour too. You will have a correspondance address for the company on the defense documentation and thats where you send the request. Then just sit back and watch the headless chickens start running.

If you use the SAR make sure you give thanks to Laini as it is a very good template.

marshallka

m colak. you seem very knowledgable in this and i would ask you for a honest answer about my claim

details loan taken out Jan 2000 with FIrstplus (apprantly broked through Freedom but still need proof). PPI added as a single premium after application was made. Settled reluctantly in 2003. FOS say that Freedom were not regulated but i have complained about the rule of 78 and other things to do with the loan and also in Jan 2000 were Firstplus regulated by anyone at all. I have spent all morning looking up threads on FIrstplus and some have won and the FOS has intervened but am i likely to get a response even it they think Firstplus sold the ppi, that they cannot help. I don't want to wait another 6/9 months and then get a simple "cannot help from the FOS". How long do i give them to deal with my complaint and to say either "yes" we can help or "no" on ya bike.

Just found out Firstplus were owned by the Barclays group. Were they owned by them in 2000 and if so am i covered if i can prove they sold me the ppi and not freedom finance because i don't think they can actually PROVE otherwise.

m.colak

marshallka wrote: »

m colak. you seem very knowledgable in this and i would ask you for a honest answer about my claim

details loan taken out Jan 2000 with FIrstplus (apprantly broked through Freedom but still need proof). PPI added as a single premium after application was made. Settled reluctantly in 2003. FOS say that Freedom were not regulated but i have complained about the rule of 78 and other things to do with the loan and also in Jan 2000 were Firstplus regulated by anyone at all. I have spent all morning looking up threads on FIrstplus and some have won and the FOS has intervened but am i likely to get a response even it they think Firstplus sold the ppi, that they cannot help. I don't want to wait another 6/9 months and then get a simple "cannot help from the FOS". How long do i give them to deal with my complaint and to say either "yes" we can help or "no" on ya bike.

Ok the thing to remember is when Firstplus became regulated was you loan account still active? If it was then yes the FOS can get involved. If no then the FOS still might get involved if the company blatenly acted outside the rules and regulations determined at the time. I have a case with black horse finance which still hasn't passed to adjudicator (FOS) and its been with them since jan (i think). It is really a matter of patience versus cost. The questions you should be asking yourself are:

1. Am i happy to take this case to court (Remembering once done you can't go back to the FOS)
2. Do i have all the document evidence to prove that the company was wrong including the regulations at the time which the company was in breach of.
3. Am i happy with exactly what i'm claiming for and the amount claimed.

If the answer to all these are yes and you need the situation resolved then i would suggest going through the courts. You have to remember the FOS is a arbitratory service and will mediate with the company to attempt to resolve the dispute and make sure that you get the best deal, but also make sure the company is happy at the same time. With most major banking groups you can be guarenteed of two things:

1. The will drag the procedure with the FOS as long as possible.
2. Will always file to defend the case at court (however not always turn up).

Nobody can tell you what you should do unfortunately all we can do is offer advice. If the FOS deem that they can't help with the case then it shouldn't/wouldn't take more than 2 months, i believe, before you get an answer. If you are not happy with the length of time for the FOS to respond you can complain but remember there are also other people waiting in the queue in the same position.

There is one ray of hope (depending on how you look at it). If you are in financial difficulties or desperately require them to look into it as fast as possible. You can request that they fast track the complaint (However not guarenteed that they will) and they should answer you faster.

tiggrae

m.colak wrote: »

Ok a SAR is a service account request and a template for this is on post #219. It doesn't matter if the loan was over the internet and to be honest it probably helps your case that it was as the rules for internet selling have got more tighter including the ruling on over reliance by companies selling/explaining PPI via post, which should work in your favour too. You will have a correspondance address for the company on the defense documentation and thats where you send the request. Then just sit back and watch the headless chickens start running.

If you use the SAR make sure you give thanks to Laini as it is a very good template.

you should also add the following into the CPR 18 - they really don't like this

Court Procedure Rule 18 – Request for Further Information

1. Procedures in place at the time of sale to ensure customers did not buy policies on which they could not claim or which provided only very limited cover;
2. The Controls and Systems in place at the time of sale to stop staff giving advice or providing information that amounted to giving advice;
3. Systems in place at the time of sale to assess suitability adequately (ie what advice could and could not be given, how did you assess a customers suitability for specific products);
4. What Controls were in place at the time of sale to assess the quality and timeliness of product and price disclosure;
5. Provide details as to the level and structure of inducements and targets for sales staff in place at the time of sale;
6. What training was proviced to the Salesperson involved with the sale of the Insurances and how was the competence of the specific sales staff assessed (please provice copies of actual training records and compentancy assessments;
7. What Compliance Monitoring was in place to ensure complaince with good practive; and
8. Copy of any Internal or External Audit reports into the Sale of Insurances within the company issued since the sale of the insurances took place.

marshallka

Looking at someone elses threads on here

Just found out Firstplus were owned by the Barclays group. Were they owned by them in 2000 and if so am i covered if i can prove they sold me the ppi and not freedom finance because i don't think they can actually PROVE otherwise.

My loan was settled in 2003 but won't the FOS take it from the date i was sold the Loan and ppi too. Who has to prove what. I really think it was Firstplus that sold the ppi and i have sent lots of paperwork copies from my SAR to FOS.

m.colak

tiggrae wrote: »

you should also add the following into the CPR 18 - they really don't like this

Court Procedure Rule 18 – Request for Further Information

1. Procedures in place at the time of sale to ensure customers did not buy policies on which they could not claim or which provided only very limited cover;
2. The Controls and Systems in place at the time of sale to stop staff giving advice or providing information that amounted to giving advice;
3. Systems in place at the time of sale to assess suitability adequately (ie what advice could and could not be given, how did you assess a customers suitability for specific products);
4. What Controls were in place at the time of sale to assess the quality and timeliness of product and price disclosure;
5. Provide details as to the level and structure of inducements and targets for sales staff in place at the time of sale;
6. What training was proviced to the Salesperson involved with the sale of the Insurances and how was the competence of the specific sales staff assessed (please provice copies of actual training records and compentancy assessments;
7. What Compliance Monitoring was in place to ensure complaince with good practive; and
8. Copy of any Internal or External Audit reports into the Sale of Insurances within the company issued since the sale of the insurances took place.

Hi Tiggrae,

You logged off early last night didn't you:D . Have finally sent a email to the abuse clinic cause i saw Petermb was up to his old tricks again.

homer_j_3

what do you mean mcolak about petermb?

m.colak

marshallka wrote: »

Looking at someone elses threads on here

Just found out Firstplus were owned by the Barclays group. Were they owned by them in 2000 and if so am i covered if i can prove they sold me the ppi and not freedom finance because i don't think they can actually PROVE otherwise.

My loan was settled in 2003 but won't the FOS take it from the date i was sold the Loan and ppi too. Who has to prove what. I really think it was Firstplus that sold the ppi and i have sent lots of paperwork copies from my SAR to FOS.

Ok if they were covered by the Barclays group then yes you can have them. The date for the six year period is if the account was active in the last six years not when it was activated. The reason for this is if policy came in which made something illegal then you should have been sent a new policy in line with the new regulations. Many companies don't and therefore they are not actually looking after their clients and are in violation of the consumer credit act.