PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

tiggrae

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.

Barclays have owned firstplus since 1997, as such they have always been covered by the FSA - Barclays have been trying to flog them off for years !!!

It's the same with Lombard, they are owned by royal bank of scotland - it's only the independent lenders who only came under the compulsory jurisdiction of the FOS on 15th January 2005.

m.colak

homer_j wrote: »

what do you mean mcolak about petermb?

ok i gave him fair warning.

1. He always posted snippets of information and never backed it up with any actual advice as par sae.
2. He actually works in a company that reclaims PPI (for a fee) and if soemone replies to him them he tells them to pm him for more details. This is not in his signature that he has a vested interest.
3. He oftend posts the same remark about the validity of the loan agreement over the reclaiming of missold PPI. Which i don't agree with: If someone borrows money then yes they should pay it back however the strap on's should be reclaimed where mis sold.

There are a few people on here like yourself and tiggrae who give information freely which is what this site is all about. Not for your own financial gain. I am sorry it came to it however i don't agree with trawling especially when people ask for advice.

tiggrae

m.colak wrote: »

ok i gave him fair warning.

1. He always posted snippets of information and never backed it up with any actual advice as par sae.
2. He actually works in a company that reclaims PPI (for a fee) and if soemone replies to him them he tells them to pm him for more details. This is not in his signature that he has a vested interest.
3. He oftend posts the same remark about the validity of the loan agreement over the reclaiming of missold PPI. Which i don't agree with: If someone borrows money then yes they should pay it back however the strap on's should be reclaimed where mis sold.

There are a few people on here like yourself and tiggrae who give information freely which is what this site is all about. Not for your own financial gain. I am sorry it came to it however i don't agree with trawling especially when people ask for advice.

Basically, I'm on here because I don't want the banks / lenders to win - which they can do through employing high powered solicitors, which really gets my goat as they use legal technicalities to avoid repaying what basically amounts to theft !!!

m.colak

tiggrae wrote: »

Basically, I'm on here because I don't want the banks / lenders to win - which they can do through employing high powered solicitors, which really gets my goat as they use legal technicalities to avoid repaying what basically amounts to theft !!!

Tiggrae i never accussed you of anything but being very helpful. As i said i only have and had a problem with how petermb operated. I got my goat that i saw someone post about PPI today and saw him sharking straight in again. I want to get things like that stopped as it undermines people's confidence in the site. I am a great believer in people doing it themselves (As Martin is). That way they get a better feel for things and never fall for the same trap again plus it makes them more financially aware. I agree i don't want banks/lenders to win.

tiggrae

m.colak wrote: »

Tiggrae i never accussed you of anything but being very helpful. As i said i only have and had a problem with how petermb operated. I got my goat that i saw someone post about PPI today and saw him sharking straight in again. I want to get things like that stopped as it undermines people's confidence in the site. I am a great believer in people doing it themselves (As Martin is). That way they get a better feel for things and never fall for the same trap again plus it makes them more financially aware. I agree i don't want banks/lenders to win.

Hi - I know you hadn't but just wanted to make my own position clear, I do work for a company that reclaims PPI for people, but it's usually where people have attempted to make reclaims for themselves and have got into difficulties or are too scared to start court action themselves !! I wouldn't ever advise anyone on here to use a reclaim company if their claim appears straight forward !!!

homer_j_3

m.colak wrote: »

ok i gave him fair warning.

1. He always posted snippets of information and never backed it up with any actual advice as par sae.
2. He actually works in a company that reclaims PPI (for a fee) and if soemone replies to him them he tells them to pm him for more details. This is not in his signature that he has a vested interest.
3. He oftend posts the same remark about the validity of the loan agreement over the reclaiming of missold PPI. Which i don't agree with: If someone borrows money then yes they should pay it back however the strap on's should be reclaimed where mis sold.

Ah Ok.

I have actually met Petermb in person through here because I was of similar thoughts to you initially. To be fair to you, I was expecting some pretty negative things but I wanted to understand what he was going on about and gave him the opportunity to explain in full. I do not understand why he did not go on to qualify his posts but thats now besides the point, as I have done this for him lol.

In response to your numbered reasons, I would like to respond to bring some clarity to the misunderstandings that may have arisen through his approach to this forum. I have been around here for a while and understand the ethos and ethical standings of this site better than he does/did.

1. He did not provide full reasoning to his comments, you are correct. I found this very same problem when he came on the mortgage boards. Due to an issue with a company called Cartel Client Review, i ended up in communication with Peter.

From this communication, I was able to get more information on what he was doing and I had chance to go and look further into it. I have pretty much given the info surrounding PPI and the secret commission law.

2. I appreciate that he has done the PM route and that its not really acceptable but as we all know you are not allowed to advertise on here and I would always warn people that you should check out any person/company that contacts you via PM. I believe that Peters company are different to a lot of claims management companies and you are incorrect about the fee. There is no fee for his service but rather than go into the ins and outs on here, I have been very open in the fact that Martin is looking into this whole thing. This to me shows that he has seen some degree of merit in what I have sent him but he would like to do his own checks and this should not be deemed as an endorsement (something else I have been clear about). I have tried to bridge the gap between what Peter is trying to do for people on this forum and also giving people enough information to work out for themselves whether or not martins current approach is what they want or whether there is a better approach which may help them further.

3. These lenders have lent against the law and the law offers recourse. This is a consumer site and not a "love thy lender" site. All he has done is bring peoples attention (inc mine) that people who are struggling or have struggled due to the illegal actions of their lenders, now have something to fight back with. I appreciate that you may feel it goes against your ethics but the law was put there to protect people like you and me from lenders acting outside their remit as such, just as it was put there to force people out of their homes when people do not pay their debts.

Overall, I don't think he posts much on here, purely because he has realised that my approach is more effective to getting the word out than his. I am not on here for a fight nor am I on here for everybody to agree with me. I am here to spell out what the law is and if people are comfortable following martins advice then that is fine but I do not want people losing their homes, spoiling their lives through battles with DCA's illegally chasing debt etc.

Anyway. I hope that this clears a few things up and you are able to continue your sterling work on here as I am allowed to inform people of these laws.

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.

Hi feel much better now, have got SAR in an envelope together with the CPR and will post recorded this afternoon. Rang the Court and paperwork not due in yet as the new Judge has asked for a questionaire. Panick over.

m.colak

homer_j wrote: »

Ah Ok.

I have actually met Petermb in person through here because I was of similar thoughts to you initially. To be fair to you, I was expecting some pretty negative things but I wanted to understand what he was going on about and gave him the opportunity to explain in full. I do not understand why he did not go on to qualify his posts but thats now besides the point, as I have done this for him lol.

In response to your numbered reasons, I would like to respond to bring some clarity to the misunderstandings that may have arisen through his approach to this forum. I have been around here for a while and understand the ethos and ethical standings of this site better than he does/did.

1. He did not provide full reasoning to his comments, you are correct. I found this very same problem when he came on the mortgage boards. Due to an issue with a company called Cartel Client Review, i ended up in communication with Peter.

From this communication, I was able to get more information on what he was doing and I had chance to go and look further into it. I have pretty much given the info surrounding PPI and the secret commission law.

2. I appreciate that he has done the PM route and that its not really acceptable but as we all know you are not allowed to advertise on here and I would always warn people that you should check out any person/company that contacts you via PM. I believe that Peters company are different to a lot of claims management companies and you are incorrect about the fee. There is no fee for his service but rather than go into the ins and outs on here, I have been very open in the fact that Martin is looking into this whole thing. This to me shows that he has seen some degree of merit in what I have sent him but he would like to do his own checks and this should not be deemed as an endorsement (something else I have been clear about). I have tried to bridge the gap between what Peter is trying to do for people on this forum and also giving people enough information to work out for themselves whether or not martins current approach is what they want or whether there is a better approach which may help them further.

3. These lenders have lent against the law and the law offers recourse. This is a consumer site and not a "love thy lender" site. All he has done is bring peoples attention (inc mine) that people who are struggling or have struggled due to the illegal actions of their lenders, now have something to fight back with. I appreciate that you may feel it goes against your ethics but the law was put there to protect people like you and me from lenders acting outside their remit as such, just as it was put there to force people out of their homes when people do not pay their debts.

Overall, I don't think he posts much on here, purely because he has realised that my approach is more effective to getting the word out than his. I am not on here for a fight nor am I on here for everybody to agree with me. I am here to spell out what the law is and if people are comfortable following martins advice then that is fine but I do not want people losing their homes, spoiling their lives through battles with DCA's illegally chasing debt etc.

Anyway. I hope that this clears a few things up and you are able to continue your sterling work on here as I am allowed to inform people of these laws.

Completely agree with all the above. I think we should make it clear that anybody whom wishes to contest a contract must be fully up to speed with legislation and all the rules and act applicable to such. In such a case i would advise a solicitor as they, i believe, are more equiped to carry out such work. The routes that we basically explain or help with on this thread are in order for a person whom has been mis sold a policy to recoupe their loss's. Not to attempt to completely start a massive court case on a validity on a contract.

I recently went to a hearing where the Judge said well you read the contract so its your fault, nevermind unfair rules or breaches of acts. My whole purpose on being on this thread is to assist or help where i can from the experiences that i have gained whilst reclaiming PPI. If his company don't charge a fee then surely Martin should or can quote them as a valuable resource (as you said he's looking into it). Up until then i stand by my guns:

1. Post advice not snippets
2. If someone asks you directly then post the information don't go round the house's and ask them to pm you (The only time i've asked someone to pm me is if they didn't feel comfortable putting it on the thread and would like me to look.)
3. Advice is free

m.colak

tiggrae wrote: »

Hi - I know you hadn't but just wanted to make my own position clear, I do work for a company that reclaims PPI for people, but it's usually where people have attempted to make reclaims for themselves and have got into difficulties or are too scared to start court action themselves !! I wouldn't ever advise anyone on here to use a reclaim company if their claim appears straight forward !!!

Completely agree however i think in most case's it is a case of a gentle push in the right direction or a linky to a website which sometimes that will provide the answer. I would like to post i gain no financial benefit for being on this website nor do i work for a PPI company (in any way shape or form). All information and opinions i give are my own and are based on 6 months of intensive research into PPI (plus i'm still learning). I think some PPI companies are good likewise i think some are sharks (usual case). Until i hear specifically about one and we all agree i will not refer them. I will neither state any are good or bad as i don't know enough about the companies in question.

marshallka

m colak... you mention "you recently went to a hearing". Are you a legal bod then yourself. You ought to take it up if not. :cool: