PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

m.colak

Kaia wrote: »

Hi Marshallka
Dont know, but that sounds like a fee or a commission to me???
I knew they would acknowledge at last minute, Marluc said they did the same with him, so was expecting it.
Wasnt in the mood to receive that today of all days, got a funeral this afternoon

hi believe that to be 5% commision on the loan itself which equates to £850.

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

the advance is probably the amount they've paid over to the insurance company for your ppi policy

Is that illegal and should i have this on my loan agreement.

marshallka

m.colak wrote: »

hi believe that to be 5% commision on the loan itself which equates to £850.

You are a genius m colak

Where do i stand now. What do i do.

£17,000 x 5 % £850 quid

No commission for the sale of the ppi then as i BELIEVED FIRSTPLUS SOLD IT TO ME NOT FREEDOM FINANCE or is this a bad thing in that Freedom did not receive commission for the ppi

m.colak

marshallka wrote: »

You are a genius m colak

Where do i stand now. What do i do.

£17,000 x 5 % £850 quid

Stop you are embarrasing me:rolleyes:. Ok first of all you need confirmation of what the commision is for. If its for brokering the PPI then they have accepted liability for the mis selling of the PPI. If its for the loan then you have to consider. If its was for brokering the loan then this is commision which should have been paid by one company to another and not by you (ie the company whom signed you up for the loan was acting as a third party and therefore have added their charge to the loan). If this is the case and they were in fact a third party then unfortunately you wouldn't be able to claim it back unless you could prove that this commision is extortiate in anyway shape or form.

Either way this means that they have acceptable responsible and gained financially from the selling of the policy so it is them in fact whom are liable for the mis selling of the loan and respective PPI in the first place.

m.colak

Matt's Tip Of The Day:

An MCOL filed acknowledgement is different from a filed defence for one reason alone:

an acknowledgement means that they have seen the claim and have yet to decide what to do: Give them three weeks then file a judgement by default.

an defense means that they have seen the case and will attempt to defend (or stall for more time). Either way it doesn't mean that they have filed a defense and again you should take this under the same heading as the acknowledgement i.e. if you don't receive the questionaire or a copy of the defendants defense or acknowledgement that they have filed a defense in three weeks then you can still claim a judgement by default.

m.colak

Kaia wrote: »

Hi Marshallka
Dont know, but that sounds like a fee or a commission to me???
I knew they would acknowledge at last minute, Marluc said they did the same with him, so was expecting it.
Wasnt in the mood to receive that today of all days, got a funeral this afternoon

Sorry to hear you have a funeral today Kaia you have my sympathy and deepest regrets.

Kaia_2

tiggrae wrote: »

the defendants have to file a defence (within 28 days), this will then be followed by an Allocation Questionnaire - this is a court document which basically is asking for which court track you believe your claim should go down and which court - always specify your local county court and the small claims track - you'll also be asked if you'de like to use the court mediation service - usually a good idea to say yes !!! You can also (under court procedure rule 18 - CPR 18 request further information from the defendant - see my posts of yesterday) if after all that you can't agree with the defendant a hearing date will be set

Hi tiggrae...
I read Marluc's post the other day, he said that he requested the CPR18 from Freedoms solicitors and they wrote back saying that this rule does not apply to the small claims and refused to send deatils.
So does this CPR18 apply even on small claims???

marshallka

m.colak wrote: »

Stop you are embarrasing me:rolleyes:. Ok first of all you need confirmation of what the commision is for. If its for brokering the PPI then they have accepted liability for the mis selling of the PPI. If its for the loan then you have to consider. If its was for brokering the loan then this is commision which should have been paid by one company to another and not by you (ie the company whom signed you up for the loan was acting as a third party and therefore have added their charge to the loan). If this is the case and they were in fact a third party then unfortunately you wouldn't be able to claim it back unless you could prove that this commision is extortiate in anyway shape or form.

Either way this means that they have acceptable responsible and gained financially from the selling of the policy so it is them in fact whom are liable for the mis selling of the loan and respective PPI in the first place.

M colak, how can you tell if things are missing from your SAR. My print outs are sort of numbered and they were sent out of sequence. (naturally). I have grouped these together and note that quite a few numbers are missing from the sequence. Can this happen. I know i am nit picking at this but i have to do. Who can tell (and more importantly who can prove) if everything is included in the SAR.

angelwillow

angelwillow wrote: »

Don't know if anyone can help but any advise would be appreciated.
In January 2005 after many tearful sleepness nights I stupidly took out a loan that I really wish that I hadn't. The paperwork says GE but it was actually through HBOS(found this out later). Anyway I agreed to a loan of £13000 after they phoned me out of the blue and because I was desparate I was keen to go ahead with it. I didn't notice at the time but the advisor - who was very pushy and said I probably wouldn't get the loan without ppi,but that's a different story - put my monthly income as higher than it was (and still is way more as I had to take a downgrade at work due to being treated with depression which I did have before and told them so) and told me that I could easily afford the loan. Alas I couldn't and after struggling on for awhile had to admit defeat and go into default and pay a reduce sum each month (due to effectively 'losing my job' due to my illness which I also told them about). Because of this they gave me a total amount to pay of £28267.84 which obviously I have even less chance of paying than the £13000. What irks me is having to pay the ppi plus insurance when I can no longer use it - not that I would have anyway as it was for unemployment and having worked for the government for 20 years felt pretty secure and any redundancy would more than pay it off.
I have tried to claim back the ppi through misselling but have been refused despite them saying they do not have a phone record of the 'application'.
I know this is really my own fault but can I do anything about this - I only have a copy of the original credit agreement which gives figures showing it was definately a single premium cover.
Sorry for rambling on but this is causing me even more sleepless nights and more medication!

Anyone got any more advise to add? SAR and then FO?

tiggrae

Kaia wrote: »

Hi tiggrae...
I read Marluc's post the other day, he said that he requested the CPR18 from Freedoms solicitors and they wrote back saying that this rule does not apply to the small claims and refused to send deatils.
So does this CPR18 apply even on small claims???

This is the rules for CPR 18 - I think the solicitors will be referring to is 1.2 - ie has to be concise, but there is nothing I've seen about not being allowed under the small claims track, I've had letters back where it says the information requested is disproportionate - however, if a defendent has put a claimant to 'a strict burden of proof' then I would argue information regarding good practice procedures over the selling of insurance are part of this (ie if they can't prove good practice procedures how can they say an insurance was sold properly ?)

PRELIMINARY REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR CLARIFICATION
1.1 Before making an application to the court for an order under Part 18, the party seeking clarification or information (the first party) should first serve on the party from whom it is sought (the second party) a written request for that clarification or information (a Request) stating a date by which the response to the Request should be served. The date must allow the second party a reasonable time to respond.
1.2 A Request should be concise and strictly confined to matters which are reasonably necessary and proportionate to enable the first party to prepare his own case or to understand the case he has to meet.
1.3 Requests must be made as far as possible in a single comprehensive document and not piecemeal.
1.4 A Request may be made by letter if the text of the Request is brief and the reply is likely to be brief; otherwise the Request should be made in a separate document.
1.5 If a Request is made in a letter, the letter should, in order to distinguish it from any other that might routinely be written in the course of a case,
(1)state that it contains a Request made under Part 18, and
(2)deal with no matters other than the Request.
1.6 (1)A Request (whether made by letter or in a separate document) must –
(a)be headed with the name of the court and the title and number of the claim,
(b)in its heading state that it is a Request made under Part 18, identify the first party and the second party and state the date on which it is made,
(c)set out in a separate numbered paragraph each request for information or clarification,
(d)where a Request relates to a document, identify that document and (if relevant) the paragraph or words to which it relates,
(e)state the date by which the first party expects a response to the Request.
(2)(a)A Request which is not in the form of a letter may, if convenient, be prepared in such a way that the response may be given on the same document.
(b)To do this the numbered paragraphs of the Request should appear on the left hand half of each sheet so that the paragraphs of the response may then appear on the right.
(c)Where a Request is prepared in this form an extra copy should be served for the use of the second party.
1.7 Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 3.1 to 3.3 of the Practice Direction to Part 6, a request should be served by e-mail if reasonably practicable.