PPI & AA/British Gas/Centrica

[neilloffhagen]

Below is a rather long letter to the AA/British Gas loan regarding cancellation and rrefund of PPI costs. Was wondering if anyone would be kind enough to comment on it? Also, can I claim for unsolicited telesales calls, as already had asked them twice not to make such calls?

Thanks,

Neil.

Dear Miss Humphrey Re:Agreement No: xxxxxxxxxxx

I am again most disappointed, even angered, that you have failed to pass on the information from my letter of the 2nd July 2006, wherein was the following:

“You may recall that I told you in my previous correspondence of calls that I had received from your customer services department offering me additional funding. I explained that in my opinion this was irresponsible banking and that if you were concerned to help in my debt management you should not be offering to involve me in further debt. Having received your assurances that such a situation would not occur again and having been told that my account would be marked to this effect, imagine my amazement when on Friday 23rd June 2006 I received yet another phone call from your customer services department asking me how the loan was progressing. After I had explained that I was in dispute with yourselves over the PPI refund I then asked the nature of the call only to be offered further debt should I require it. I immediately asked for a settlement figure so that I could close this account completely.”

This evening, 13th July 2006, at approx. 20:30, I received yet another call offering me a further loan!!

I consider this a direct breach of the DIRECTIVE 2002/58/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications). Within this document it states “Within the context of an existing customer relationship, it is reasonable to allow the use of electronic contact details for the offering of similar products or services ..., only allowing such calls to subscribers and users who have given their prior consent.” Having asked at least twice NOT to receive such calls, it can easily be taken that I have NOT “given prior consent”.

It is interesting to note that today is also the day that my settlement cheque for £5,788.04 was cashed. You may now consider the matter closed, but as mentioned in the letter, dated 5th July 2006, accompanying said cheque, I certainly do not.

In a previous letter, dated 18th May 2006, I asked you to refund me £325 which is what I saw as the overpayment in subscriptions for the PPI. I also expected my monthly payments to return to the original amount of £248 for the duration of the original term. It was your non-agreement to this that led me to settle the loan in full, according to your figures which I have continually disputed.

I acknowledge your letters attempting to explain how your figures were calculated, but still dispute that the PPI was not explained either on the 'phone or fully in the contract. It was stated that the loan was £228.43, per month and the PPI was £48.00 extra per month. At no time was it mentioned that the PPI was loaded at the front of the loan. If I had know that I would not have taken the loan out with your company. So the cost of the PPI over the 36 months of the loan (36 x £48.00) works out at £1728.00. If we then take off the cost of the 11 months cover which was provided, which equals £528.00, before the PPI was cancelled, I calculate you owe me £1200.00.

In plain language on the front page of the contract it stated:
LOAN monthly cost: £228.43
PPI monthly cost: £48.00
Total monthly cost: £276.43

According to the OFT:

An unfair term in a contract covered by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (UTCCRs) is not binding on you.
Test of fairness
A term is unfair if:
contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers.
'Good faith' means that traders must deal fairly and openly with you.
Although standard terms may be drafted to protect commercial needs, they must also take account of the your interests and rights by going no further than is necessary to protect those legitimate commercial interests.
The plain language requirement
According to the UTCCRs, a standard term must be expressed in plain and intelligible language. A term is open to challenge if it could put you at a disadvantage because you are not clear about its meaning - even if its meaning could be worked out by a lawyer. If there is doubt as to what a term means, the meaning most favourable to the consumer will apply.

From your own plain terms you owe me part of the PPI which is £1200.00

My targets to resolve this matter

Having already requested one way of sorting this dispute, I will now give you 14 days to reply to me accepting unconditionally my request in principle and letting me know a date by which I will receive the £1200.00. payment.

If you do not respond or you do not respond positively within this time period, I shall send you a letter before action giving you a further 7 days in which to reflect. I believe that these targets are more than sufficient for a large company such as yours with dedicated staff and departments.

After that will be no further communication from me and I shall issue a claim at the expiry of the second deadline.

I look forward to your early reply