Interest applied to ppi

[hellhasnofury]

Hello

It has come to my attention, that some peeps who are looking to reclaim back mis-sold ppi are unaware that the ppi premium whether single loaded or monthly premiums attract interest.

You need to look at your credit agreement to calculate the interest applied.

In some cases it is clearly marked the amount of interest they applied. So no homework for you.

In other cases it is added to the total charge for credit, so not that easy to calculate. This is were you need a calculator. You can work the interest out by finding the interest rate and the length of term, months/years.

Once you have done your calculation, you can them put them on a spreadsheet and work out the contractual interest, from the date the loan was taken to the present day.

[kittycatty]

Hi
Do you have a simple way for this as I have been trying to work this out and my figures are all over the place.
See Barclays Miss Sold PPI

Thanks

[alanalana]

Hi,
Copies of the credit agreement may show the figures broken down into loan and ppi costs.

In my case with RBS the copies of the credit agreement actually gave a breakdown of the monthly cost of the loan figure and a separate monthly cost for the Insurance figure. I believe both would include the interest.

I multiplied the PPI monthly figure X length of claim in months (84) and came up with the full cost of the PPI including interest.

I then multiplied the PPI figure X the number of months I had paid it (14)and added on the APR (which should also appear on the Credit agreement).

HHNF and others with more experience may be able to help better.

good luck

aa

[hellhasnofury]

Hello,

Without trying to complicate the interest issue further, it is important to actually know what the interest rate is that they applied to the ppi, not the apr. I do believe that they are different:o

And after reading the biggest thread in the world, nevermind cag the consumer credit agreement, its about 500pages long, as present they are discussing apr being used as a prescribed term on credit agreements and possibly I should not be in agreements before 2004

Consumer Credit Act Agreements. page 572 onwards

This makes an important read and needs further clarification

Annual percentage rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Make of it what you will

On the subject of Apr here is an example of the calculation compliments of RR

Annual interest rate = 16%
Term of agreement = 4 years
Therefore total interest charge = 16% x 4 = 64% (or 0.64)

Total amount of credit = £5000 + £195 fee = £5195 x 0.64 = £3324.16

Everybody feel free to comment on the interest issues, they more heads the better

[alanalana]

My mistake I mentioned APR when in fact I used the percentage rate as shown on the Credit agreements supplied by the bank.

Sorry if I caused confusion. Follow hellhasnofury's advice I am still a learner.

aa

[hellhasnofury]

I have bumped up this thread for information.

I have also noticed that many peeps become confused about claiming for statutory interest or contractual interest/

Ok so you have worked out the cost of the premium and the interest that they charged you on your loan. You must bear in mind that if you topped-up the loan, cancelled the ppi, they may have refunded the un-used ppi and interest into the balance of the loan, therefore reducing what you owe/

Statutory 8% Interest (this is what the court would allow)
You put this information on a spreadsheet and it will automatically work out the 8% interest, that you want back from them, think of it like a savings account, they have had you money since ?????, they should not have had it, therefore you charge them interest.

Contractual Interest, Instead of the statutory 8% you work out the interest you require, based on the interest that they charged you (if it is higher). You can alter the interest rate on the spreadsheets to the nearest 1%

With credit card, you have to enter all the payments and work out the interest they applied at their rate, enter this onto the spreadsheet and work it out at the 8% Stat interest or their contractual rate of ie 14.9, 16.9. 24.0 whatever they charged you everymonth

Any comments please add

e

[alanalana]

Hello again Hell,

in response to your question in the links thread which I responded to in that thread I have found the following:

Within the Data Protection Act 1998 SHEDULES, Schedule 1 the Data Protection Principles there is Principle five. which basically states that the data should be kept no longer than is required. (BIT AMBIGUOUS this statement. Who decides what length of time?)

However it would seem under the act shedule 8 parts I and II that there are interpretations of the shedule (part I) and that there are exemptions available before 24th October 2001 (part II) for manual data which are exempt from the data protection principles and Parts II and III of the act during the first transitional period described in Part I.

I believe this basically means that any manual data are exempt from the principle 5 of only retaining for as long as required.

here is shedule 8 Link

Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29)

the important bit as I see it:

Part I Interpretation of Schedule

1 (1) For the purposes of this Schedule, personal data are “eligible data” at any time if, and to the extent that, they are at that time subject to processing which was already under way immediately before 24th October 1998.
(2) In this Schedule—

• “eligible automated data” means eligible data which fall within paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of “data” in section 1(1);
• “eligible manual data” means eligible data which are not eligible automated data;
• “the first transitional period” means the period beginning with the commencement of this Schedule (ie 1998 and ending with 23rd October 2001;
• “the second transitional period” means the period beginning with 24th October 2001 and ending with 23rd October 2007.

Part II Exemptions available before 24th October 2001

Manual data

2 (1) Eligible manual data, other than data forming part of an accessible record, are exempt from the data protection principles ( I assume all of them including principle 5 re keeping records as long as necessary ) and Parts II and III of this Act during the first transitional period.
(2) This paragraph does not apply to eligible manual data to which paragraph 4 applies.
3 (1) This paragraph applies to—
(a) eligible manual data forming part of an accessible record, and
(b) personal data which fall within paragraph (d) of the definition of “data” in section 1(1) but which, because they are not subject to processing which was already under way immediately before 24th October 1998, are not eligible data for the purposes of this Schedule.
(2) During the first transitional period, data to which this paragraph applies are exempt from—
(a) the data protection principles, except the sixth principle so far as relating to sections 7 and 12A,
(b) Part II of this Act, except—
(i) section 7 (as it has effect subject to section and section 12A, and
(ii) section 15 so far as relating to those sections, and
(c) Part III of this Act.
4 (1) This paragraph applies to eligible manual data which consist of information relevant to the financial standing of the data subject and in respect of which the data controller is a credit reference agency.
(2) During the first transitional period, data to which this paragraph applies are exempt from—
(a) the data protection principles, except the sixth principle so far as relating to sections 7 and 12A,
(b) Part II of this Act, except—
(i) section 7 (as it has effect subject to sections 8 and 9) and section 12A, and
(ii) section 15 so far as relating to those sections, and
(c) Part III of this Act.

Processing otherwise than by reference to the data subject

5 During the first transitional period, for the purposes of this Act (apart from paragraph 1), eligible automated data are not to be regarded as being “processed” unless the processing is by reference to the data subject.

Now I am still trying to get my head around this lot but would suggest you get a moderator to double check.

This is the interpretation of the act of accessible record

68 Meaning of “accessible record”
(1) In this Act “accessible record” means—
(a) a health record as defined by subsection (2),
(b) an educational record as defined by Schedule 11, or
(c) an accessible public record as defined by Schedule 12.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) “health record” means any record which—
(a) consists of information relating to the physical or mental health or condition of an individual, and
(b) has been made by or on behalf of a health professional in connection with the care of that individual.

Not sure if this information is good for you but I will try other avenues to see If I can find a simpler explanation.

The coloured texts and underlines are mine to try to help

Hope this helps
aa :o

[alanalana]

And some more info for you.

bit of a grey area this data retention.

Data retention is the main compliance headache for banks


OUT-LAW News, 11/08/2004
Data retention and retrieval is the main compliance issue facing IT directors at 80 UK investment banks, life and pensions firms and insurance companies, according to a new survey carried out on behalf of Microsoft.


Conducted by research firm Clearconcepts, the survey found that 20% of respondents listed data retention and retrieval as their most pressing compliance headache, ( About to become more pressing I would guess )closely followed by e-mail management.

Concerns over retention and retrieval included data security and fears that the volume of data would overload systems. Another issue was the requirement, imposed by various regulations, that data be stored for a set period of time – the length of which depends on the particular regulation.

For example, the Data Protection Act states that customer information should not be retained longer than necessary, yet other regulations - such as those on money laundering - put pressure on banks and building societies to store certain customer data for significant periods of time.

This conflict, said respondents, was slowing down the ability to formulate strategies for document retention and retrieval. In particular, it was giving IT directors a dilemma – should data be retained or deleted? They were all very aware that the impact of making the wrong decision and falling foul of regulators could lead to prosecution, large fines and adverse publicity both for the institution and individuals involved.

The ability to prove to the Financial Services Authority (FSA) that data is secure and accessible was seen as one of the most critical compliance issues by the IT directors interviewed. However, when questioned further, respondents said that accurate data retrieval is still a difficult hurdle for them to clear. ( They would say that wouldn't they )
Problems included an inability to keep track of files that are sent across different lines of business, and applications that sit on different drives which make data disparate and harder to access.

The survey also found that a large number of the 80 financial services firms interviewed were concerned by the problems associated with the management of e-mail. They stated that the growth of e-mail as a knowledge base as well as a communication tool within financial services organisations has meant that the problems of retention and retrieval associated with other forms of data are applying equally to e-mail.

This was especially so, said respondents, in light of recent regulatory legal cases where e-mails have been used as evidence.

Finally, all interviewees were asked what compliance solutions they had already implemented or were currently implementing. Many firms said that they were adapting existing systems in the short term ( Misers to the end ) in order to meet immediate requirements such as FSA deadlines and to minimise risk.

Others suggested that they would need to implement new platforms in the very near future ( There go some of our Profits ) if they were to support the number of changes and requirements of new regulatory standards. ( They better get a move on PPI reclaiming is about to take off big time )
Data retrieval systems are currently the most popular implementation at financial services companies with a quarter of responses emphasising this. More than one in five firms said that a surveillance solution such as an anti-money laundering system had been put in place at their organisation.

I will keep looking for a definative answer Hell

aa

[alanalana]

Hell,

more info for you

Data protection exemption expires tonight


OUT-LAW News, 23/10/2007

An exemption for paper records from the Data Protection Act runs out at midnight. The transitional relief exemption only lasted until 23rd October, imposing less stringent conditions on the holding of paper records than electronic ones.


Most paper records, though, will still be exempt, and the change in the law will affect far fewer organisations than some have predicted, according to one data protection expert.

"It is hard to see where any normal data controller is likely to have significant problems," said Rosemary Jay, a data protection expert with Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, earlier this year.
"The end of the transition period only affects information held on structured manual files – not all manual files – so it is not applicable to all old pieces of paper."
Some experts have warned that a massive number of paper records will suddenly be covered by the Data Protection Act, causing a massive administrative headache for public authorities in particular.

But Jay said that the Act applies so selectively to paper records that not many will be covered.
The Act applies only to filing systems which are extremely highly-structured and easy to search within.

In a landmark data protection ruling in 2003 the Court of Appeal said that the Act only applied to filing systems which were so complex that they were as sophisticated as a computer system when it came to organisation and searching.

In the aftermath of that ruling, a case brought by Michael Durant against the Financial Services Authority, the Information Commissioner's Office (Information Commissioners Office) updated its guidance on what filing systems were covered by the Act.
That new guidance said that the files must be organised so that "the content will either be so sub-divided as to allow the searcher to go straight to the correct category and retrieve the information requested without a manual search, or will be so indexed as to allow a searcher to go directly to the relevant page/s".

It said that a simple organisational principle such as chronology is not sufficient to qualify a system as coming under the scope of the Act.

"From 24th October this year the Data Protection Act 1998 will apply in full to all personal information covered by the Act and data controllers will need to ensure that the way personal information is processed is compliant with all the provisions of the Act," says guidance on the change to the Act issue provided by the Information Commissioners Office.
"Individuals will also have full rights to go to court to rectify any inaccurate information about them that pre-dates 24 October 1998 under Section 14 of the Act. The Act does not require that data controllers digitise or computerise old manual records."
Jay said that the change was unlikely to have a significant effect because most files will have been added to since the Act came into force in 1998. That means that they will have been treated since then in line with the Act anyway.
The reality is that since this only applies to information held in these structured files, and the rest of the file – that is the information generated since 1998 – has been subject to the Data Protection Act anyway since the Act came into force, data controllers have been treating all the information in the same way," she said.

See also:

• October rule change won't be a data protection crisis, says expert, OUT-LAW News, 26/04/2007
• Watchdog issues Data Protection Guidance after landmark case, OUT-LAW News, 09/02/2004
• Data protection right "is not an automatic key to any information", OUT-LAW News, 11/12/2003
• When is personal information subject to privacy law?, OUT-LAW News, 24/03/2003

probably more to follow

aa