GE Custom not playing Ball

[doolally lady]

I thought THEY had to prove that they hadn't mis-sold the PPI and not that you had to prove that they did.

[wills7]

I have recieved a defence pretty much the same and have a court date in July. My poc was also like yours too. When I go to court will the judge know that its down to the defendant to prove it was not MIS sold and not for me to argue it was as I'm using the misrepresantion act? Also what sort of things do I need to send to the defendant and the court 14 days before the hearing?

[ukaviator]

My collegue is going after Capital One with a simular argument, Medical issue. He could never claim because of the so many complications that can arise in the future with his condition.

If you were not asked when accepting the loan about any medical conditions at the time, then it is down to their procedure in house. They have failed to ask the basic questions all insurance companies ask when giving out insurance. They should have sent out the Term' and Conditions with a medical questionaire at the same time.

This is from the GE Money website, their Silver Policy, it is their PPI terms and conditions you could use against them, notice the disabilty section here NO 7:

http://www.gemoney.co.uk/en/images/4...-%20Silver.pdf

Their Bronze policy, same thing section 7:

http://www.gemoney.co.uk/en/images/4...-%20Bronze.pdf

I could'nt find the GE Custom Finance webpage, but this is the same company.

[hellhasnofury]

Originally Posted by DIY13

MY POC -

1. The claimant opened a CCA with GE Custom Finance Company on 24 April 2001. The account number is XXXXXXXX which was a fixed sum agreement with a total value of £16018.00. I will refer to this as the "Agreement

2. The agreement included Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) which was taken out at the same time

3. The claimant contends that the PPI relating to the Agreement, was only purchased as a result of misleading and incorrect advice given by the Sales Person employed by (Car Company Name).

4. The Office of Fair Trading states that "PPI protects borrowers' ablity to maintain repayments and should help them avoid getting into debt should they be unable to keep up their repayments due to accident, sickness or unemployment" The Claimaint contends that the PPI sold in relation to the Agreement was never capable of meeting those requirements and that the policy was missold.

5. The claimant contends that the PPI elating to the AGreement was not suitable for puprose because:

i. The claimant was not given any explanation by the Sales Person of medical exclusions within the policy which would have given rise to the policy being invalidated.

ii. The claimant was never asked whether they had alternative adequate insurance in place for the duration of the agreement.

iii. The claimant contends that comments were made by the sales person which indicated that the loan application may be refused without PPI, and in fact it was optional was never mentioned. Indeed, when the forms were provided for signature, the relevant boxes for PPI were already marked.

6 The calimant believes that a resonable level of care and skill was not offeed to the calimant by the sales person during the sales process and therefore (company) failed to meet it's obligations under the terms of section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

In considering this and all matters in this claim, the claimant asks the court to take into account the following Principles of Business which are legally binding on (the Company) under the FSA & Markets Act 2000 and are contained in the FSA Handbook

(Listed principle 1 - 9)

The claimant seeks damages and other sums as listed below, against the Defendant under section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

PPI £1164.60
Interest under s.69 County Court Act 575.90
Court Fees 85.00

Total 1825.50


The Company's Defence Outlined below:

1. The alleeged cause of action did not arise within six years before the start of this action, and therefore was and is barred by secton 5 of the Limitation Act 1980. They are a little bit selective in regard to the limitation act, they maybe did not read this far down
Section 32.--
· (1) .... where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either-
· (a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or
· (b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or
· (c) the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;
· the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. ....


2. Paragraph 1 of the particulars of Claim is admitted

3. Paragraph 2 of the particulars of claim is admitted

4. Paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim is denied

5. Paragraph 4 of the particulars of Claim is denied

6. Paragraph 5 (i) (ii) and (iii) of Particulars of claim is denied.

7. The claimant is put to strict proof of the matters alleged in paragraph 5 of the particulars of claim.

8. The defendant denies that the implied term was included in the agreement but if, which is not admitted, the said clause referred to in paragraph 6 is implied in the agreement then the Defendant denies breaching the said implied clause.

9. The defendant avers that they performed the contract with due skill, care and diligence and the Claimant recieved a copy of the terms and conditions of the contract and had fully opportunity to read and consider the same and cancel the policy if the terms did not meet her requirements. The premium was paid on a monthly basis and the claimant could have cancelled the agreement at any point.

10. If, which is not admitted, the court finds that the claimant gained no benefit from the sickness part of the policy the Defendant avers that the claimant did obtain benefit from the accident and unemployment part of the policy.

11. The defendants maintain that they did comply with the principles od business referred to in the FSA handbook.

12. if, which is not admitted, the defendants are found in breach of contract then the defendant's aver that the calimant has failed to mitogate her loss by cancelling the contract when she discovered that the terms and conditions of the contract did not meet her requirements.

13. The defendant's deny the loss claimed by the claimant and dispute the claim for interest and costs. [End]


It's a long one I know, but I'm not sure how they can say if I didn't benefit from one part of the policy I could have benefited from another part of it! (bull crap!!!).

They are now saying that they could split the IIP into sections that apply to you?? That's how I've interpreted it.

I'll await responses but i'm not going to let it phase me

Best get swatting up on the limitation act and mis-representation act. Did they send you everything under the Data Protection Act. The policy document and your credit agreement

[ukaviator]

I would also get some evidence of your condition from your Doctor, in case they turn up in court.

[DIY13]

Originally Posted by hellhasnofury

Best get swatting up on the limitation act and mis-representation act. Did they send you everything under the Data Protection Act. The policy document and your credit agreement

I had my agreement so I didn't have request it from them. I do have the policy document as well.

[DIY13]

Originally Posted by ukaviator

I would also get some evidence of your condition from your Doctor, in case they turn up in court.

Hi UKA

I have all the evidence of my medical condition from the consultant specialist, which was sent to them as evidence is support of my claim.

They have had absolutely everything! Medical report, alternative health insurance policy and proof of car accident 6 months before I purchased the vehicle.

So there is no way they can come to court saying they have not received any of this. It was sent recorded delivery and I have proof of delivery.

I guess I'm going to have to get upto scratch with the different acts as mentioned.

Thanks for everyones help and suggestions so far. Any further help will be appreciated.

[hellhasnofury]

Originally Posted by DIY13

I had my agreement so I didn't have request it from them. I do have the policy document as well.

Hello DIY,

So you have the agreement, does it conform in content with the consumer credit act 1974 and the other question do they have it

As this is now a matter of legal proceeding, have you requested anything from them under the cpr, perhaps the credit agreement.

Just a thought

[DIY13]

Originally Posted by hellhasnofury

Hello DIY,

So you have the agreement, does it conform in content with the consumer credit act 1974 and the other question do they have it

As this is now a matter of legal proceeding, have you requested anything from them under the cpr, perhaps the credit agreement.

Just a thought

Hi HHNF

I haven't requested this from them, should I do this now or is it too late now. I personally don't think they will have it, because the company has now changed hands.

However that's not to say I can't put the request in writing to them before the court date! Am I on the right path here?

Hadn't really thought of that HHNF. I will read through the TC's again and post what they say on here in relation to exclusions for medical conditions.

[DIY13]

Originally Posted by DIY13

Hi HHNF

I haven't requested this from them, should I do this now or is it too late now. I personally don't think they will have it, because the company has now changed hands.

However that's not to say I can't put the request in writing to them before the court date! Am I on the right path here?

Hadn't really thought of that HHNF. I will read through the TC's again and post what they say on here in relation to exclusions for medical conditions.

bump

[ukaviator]

Hi DIY13

Something i found this morning may be of help. Link is here:

Interesting Article on Yes Car Credit and PPI

It was an out of court settlement, but they did get the debt wiped.

[DIY13]

Originally Posted by ukaviator

Hi DIY13

Something i found this morning may be of help. Link is here:

Interesting Article on Yes Car Credit and PPI

It was an out of court settlement, but they did get the debt wiped.

Hi UKA

Interesting!!! I really have to knuckle down with getting to grips with the T&C. Can i request a copy of the agreement an T&C (even though I have my originals) from the company at this stage now it's with the courts??

The interesting thing is that they are asking me to prove things when I thought it was for them to prove no miss-selling went on! hmmmm

[Bookworm]

I could be wrong, but IMO, the statute-barred aspect doesn't apply: Whilst they applied the PPI to your loan, you are presumably still paying for both the loan and the PPI, or at least still did until at least 2002/2003, so in the same way that acknowledging a debt means the clock keeps on resetting the 6 years, so do the payments of the PPI. If they kept on taking the payments, they effectively acknowledged the cause of action was ongoing.

As for part 5, they can of course put you to strict proof, but that shouldn't be hard to prove: You can show the judge that you are aware of a medical condition which would make you uneligible for cover, right? Therefore, (and remember we are talking of "balance of probabilities" here, NOT "beyond reasonable doubt") what is most likely: that you would agree to take on a policy and pay for it, knowing that you would not qualify for cover under it, or that the salesperson would bang it on regardless of suitability, or that no-one thought of asking you relevant questions to ascertain whether you would be covered?

I think where your case may be weaker is in their #12: Why didn't you cancel the policy after you had the loan? If at some point, you realised that you wouldn't be covered, it is reasonable to ask why you didn't cancel it then, and I think you need to be ready to answer that question.

You will of course not be able to prove for certain that the salesman forced you into taking PPI by saying that without it, you wouldn't get the loan, so you'll have to convince the judge, so you'd better start writing the conversation as it happened (as you remember it), don't embellish, don't make anything up, be as precise and accurate as you can be so that the events are clear in your mind when you go to court.

[bathgatebuyer]

Subscribing with interest - my own case has been acknowledged by the Bank in question and the Court and I are awaiting their defence to my POC. Will keep an eye on this thread as I may also benefit from some of the advice given.