Havinastella v Lloyds TSB PPI

[havinastella]

Hi all, didn't think I'd need to pop into this great forum

Have finally after taking Lloyds to Court for non compliance of S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), received all my paperwork from them.

After getting into trouble with bank charges in 2001, Lloyds decided to loan us £5000.00, never realised that it had PPI on it until I received my Subject Access Request.

So amount loaned £5000
PPI £1172.42
Total £6172.42
APR 14.8%

Paid back £3210.20, got into trouble and Lloyds refinanced loan on 17/02/04, balance transer to new loan £4849.15, amount borrowed £5800, NO PPI. New loan 2.9%

All in my partners name, when she was 'sold' PPI, it was just added. Also, she is epilectic and no mention was made nor was she asked of any medical conditions.

Will start with requesting a refund, but after looking at all the calculators and with the loan being refinanced, I have no idea how to calculate what to claim.

Many thanks

JOgs

	Bank Charges You should have started your claim for your bank charges by now. Don't wait. You should send your bank a Subject Acess Request asking for all personal data they hold on you - not just statements. You should calculate all of your bank charges and related interest as far back as 1995. You should send your bank a demand for a refund giving them 7 days. You should commence your legal action adding 8% statutory interest. If you wait for the outcome of the test case, you may not be able to claim like this. you may not be able to claim interest. You may only be offered the difference between the charge and the OFT "fair charge". The repayment scheme will try to limit you to refinds from 2001 only. A repayment scheme will not deal with any bank charges related defaults on the credit register whereas in a court action you can ask for these to be removed and to be compensated for the damage caused to you and your family by them. You should also write to the bank and to the CRA and put all charges related credit entries in disupte and warn them that you will want them removed from the Register when the test case is over. Warn them also that you are likely to be seeking compensation for these wrongful data entries. Full and final settlement Have you previously accepted a partial repayment of your bank charges in full settlement? You will still be able to claim the rest of your money back after the Test case is decided. Get all your information back to 1995 and put in your claim now.

	Subject Access Request A Subject Access Request is a demand which you can make to any organisation to disclose any personal information which they hold on you. The right to disclosure of data is provided by the Data Protection Act. There is no time limit. The organisation is obliged to reveal everything they have about you - which you ask for - as far back as you ask for. There are very few exceptions. It does not matter whether the data is held on microfiche, in an archive, on tape, in a cardex system, in sound recordings or in screen notes. Some companies are saying that they do not have to disclose where it would be difficult to do so - "disproportionate effort". This is untrue. Disproportionate effort refers to something else under the Act. If you are seeking bank charges information then you should ask for "all data held on you" and you should make it clear that you want everything as far back as it goes. Do not be put off by excuses. Do not accept being fobbed off. It is not in your bank's interest to make full disclosure to you. This means that it is in your interests to get it. If you have not started gathering your bank charges information yet, then you should start now. There will soon be a big rush once the OFT test case has been settled. Get all of your bank account informtion as far back as possible. At least as far back as 1995. If your bank says that they don't keep data as far back as this, don't accept it. Be persistent. They've got what you need in some form or other.

[maroondevo52]

Hi, JOgs.

Sorry, I'm not clued up on the PPI claims
But, good luck with that.

Regards.

Scott.

[havinastella]

Thanks Scott,

I feel so out of my depth in here

[alanalana]

Hello havinastella,

welcome to the PPI forum

A friendly bunch of caggers to other caggers not so sure when it comes to banks, mortgage companies, DCA's, Catalogue companies and whoever else tries to take advantage of their customers.

Hi all, didn't think I'd need to pop into this great forum

Have finally after taking Lloyds to Court for non compliance of S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), received all my paperwork from them.

After getting into trouble with bank charges in 2001, Lloyds decided to loan us £5000.00, never realised that it had PPI on it until I received my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request).

So amount loaned £5000
PPI £1172.42
Total £6172.42
APR 14.8%

Paid back £3210.20, got into trouble and Lloyds refinanced loan on 17/02/04, balance transer to new loan £4849.15, amount borrowed £5800, NO PPI. New loan 2.9%

All in my partners name, when she was 'sold' PPI, it was just added. Also, she is epilectic and no mention was made nor was she asked of any medical conditions.

Will start with requesting a refund, but after looking at all the calculators and with the loan being refinanced, I have no idea how to calculate what to claim.

Firstly I would say you have a solid claim see my red bold text from your post.

the figures will have to be covered by a clever mathematical person and I am sure they will be popping in to ask more questions to assist you in the calculations to recover the Mis-sold PPI that you can reclaim.

I believe you will be looking at the refund of the PPI single premium as it appears to be plus the interest added to it and the 8% Statutory interest a Court would add.

If you go down the Financial Ombudsman Service route it will take a long time if you go down the Court route it could be faster,

However if you go to FOS and the complaint is not upheld you still have the option of Court but not the other way round as FOS will not take on cases that have been lost in Court so you have to make a choice.

Hope this helps you get started with reclaiming YOUR money

aa

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

	Debt collection library Follow this link to our debt collection library. This library contains templates and advice for dealing with debt collectors who act oppressively or unfairly. This library is work in progress and will be built up over the next few weeks. 17.03.09

	Bank Charges You should have started your claim for your bank charges by now. Don't wait. You should send your bank a Subject Acess Request asking for all personal data they hold on you - not just statements. You should calculate all of your bank charges and related interest as far back as 1995. You should send your bank a demand for a refund giving them 7 days. You should commence your legal action adding 8% statutory interest. If you wait for the outcome of the test case, you may not be able to claim like this. you may not be able to claim interest. You may only be offered the difference between the charge and the OFT "fair charge". The repayment scheme will try to limit you to refinds from 2001 only. A repayment scheme will not deal with any bank charges related defaults on the credit register whereas in a court action you can ask for these to be removed and to be compensated for the damage caused to you and your family by them. You should also write to the bank and to the CRA and put all charges related credit entries in disupte and warn them that you will want them removed from the Register when the test case is over. Warn them also that you are likely to be seeking compensation for these wrongful data entries. Full and final settlement Have you previously accepted a partial repayment of your bank charges in full settlement? You will still be able to claim the rest of your money back after the Test case is decided. Get all your information back to 1995 and put in your claim now.

	Subject Access Request A Subject Access Request is a demand which you can make to any organisation to disclose any personal information which they hold on you. The right to disclosure of data is provided by the Data Protection Act. There is no time limit. The organisation is obliged to reveal everything they have about you - which you ask for - as far back as you ask for. There are very few exceptions. It does not matter whether the data is held on microfiche, in an archive, on tape, in a cardex system, in sound recordings or in screen notes. Some companies are saying that they do not have to disclose where it would be difficult to do so - "disproportionate effort". This is untrue. Disproportionate effort refers to something else under the Act. If you are seeking bank charges information then you should ask for "all data held on you" and you should make it clear that you want everything as far back as it goes. Do not be put off by excuses. Do not accept being fobbed off. It is not in your bank's interest to make full disclosure to you. This means that it is in your interests to get it. If you have not started gathering your bank charges information yet, then you should start now. There will soon be a big rush once the OFT test case has been settled. Get all of your bank account informtion as far back as possible. At least as far back as 1995. If your bank says that they don't keep data as far back as this, don't accept it. Be persistent. They've got what you need in some form or other.

	Are you letting your bank keep your money Are you giving away thousands of pounds?? Many people aren't claiming all of the money they are entitled to when they make their bank charges claims. You have been forced to pay unfair bank charges. Have you forgotten that your bank has charged you inteest on those charges? If you are overdrawn and the bank owes you charges - then your overdraft is made up of charges - money which you bank owes you. Yet you are paying interest to the bank - on your own money!!! Follow this link to see the discussions on this. You might even double th size of your claim.

[havinastella]

Hows this look

Complaints Department
Personal Loans Service Centre
Lloyds TSB
PO Box 43
Peterlee
County Durham
SR8 2YQ

11th November 2008

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Complaint and request for return of Payment Protection Insurance premium and contractual interest. Account no: xxxxxxxxxxxx

On the 06th June 2001, I took out an unsecured loan with your bank of £5000.

When I took it out, I signed up for Payment Protection Insurance [PPI]. At the time I was experiencing some short term financial difficulties and I was told that I could not have the loan unless I agreed to take the insurance. In addition your salesperson did not check my personal circumstances at the time of sale, which they are under obligation to do. If they had done, they would have realised that a PPI policy was useless to me due to my existing medical conditions.

No claim was ever made under the policy.

I now realize following the recent OFT and FSA investigations, that you mis-sold me this insurance policy, which I did not want and did not need. I believe I signed up for the insurance under economic duress and that your actions were unconscionable

I am writing to ask you to refund the premium paid together with interest equal to your APR at the time under the accepted principle of mutuality and reciprocity.

Your responsibilities

I would draw your attention to the terms of the contract which you agreed to at the time that I opened my account. It is an implied term of that contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully and in a manner which complies with UK law.

I am frankly shocked that you have operated my loan account in this way as I had always reposed confidence in your integrity and expertise as my fiduciary.

Firstly, I understand that at the time I entered into the contract with you your bank was running an incentive scheme to encourage your employees to sell PPI schemes, as were several other High Street banks. A former employee of yours has posted the following on a public website in September 2006:

I worked for Lloyds TSB up to 4 1/2 years ago - the points system you state is being used by RBS was used by Lloyds TSB more than 5 years ago.

Bosses and Regional Managers turn a blind eye to 'mis-selling' because they get bigger cash bonuses (or foreign holidays) than the staff selling the products. Even worse, Lloyds TSB use the disciplinary procedure to threaten staff with dismissal for failing to reach targets.

I was personally threatened in this way and in the end left, after 25 years service, to find much more fulfilling employment elsewhere.

Failing to hit targets was a bigger crime than mis-selling, which in my experience was brushed under the carpet.


I was not aware of this and even if it is untrue, I consider that there was a clear conflict of interest between your fiduciary responsibilities to me and the direct selling by your employees of PPI schemes, given the very large profit margins they generate.

No attempt was made to ascertain if the product provided was fit for purpose, suitable for my needs or if indeed if I really needed it at all. No inquiry was made as whether I had pre existing insurance for accident, illness or unemployment. I was not given a copy of the insurance policy nor were any rights to cancel explained. I believe you manifestly failed in your fiduciary responsibilities, your duty of care.

Secondly, I understand under the Consumer Credit Acts and following a House of Lords judgment that you are not allowed to make a loan conditional on taking PPI unless you include the costs of PPI as part of the charge for credit and not the credit itself.

You did not do this. You added it to the total for credit and then charged me further interest on the premium on top of the interest for the loan. This is unacceptable.

Finally I believe insurance contracts are contracts uberrimae fidei (contracts of the utmost good faith) which imposes on you a “duty of disclosure of all material facts because one party is in a strong position to know the truth.” Inter alia, I believe that you should have disclosed to me that the type of policy you sold me, a single payment premium, did not give a pro-rata refund in event of early settlement. I believe you should have made it clear to me that the policy generated large profits for you. You failed to do this. I believe that you have also therefore failed in your duty of disclosure. Your failure to disclose is misrepresentation at common law.

What I require

Your concealment of the act of mis-selling has prevented me from asserting my right until now. I believe that there are strong grounds for action against you under common law, statute and consumer regulations.

The original premium was £1172.42 debited to my account on 08th June 2001.

I require the £1172.42 premium charge refunded with interest from 08th June 2001 to date of £2093.21, totalling £3265.63.

The total claim is therefore £3265.63.

I have calculated interest at 14.8% APR., which I estimate was your APR at the time, reflecting the principal of mutuality and reciprocity. I am sure you will advise me if the APR at the time was different. Alternatively I will ask the Court to allow me statutory interest at 8% under S69 of the Count Court Act.

My targets to resolve this matter

I hope that you will enter into a sincere dialogue with me about this matter and I am writing this letter to you on the assumption that you will prefer to do this than merely respond with standard letters and leaflets. I will 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 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 14 days in which to reflect. I believe that this time frame is sufficient for a large company such as yours with its dedicated staff and departments. After that, there will be no further communication from me and I shall issue a claim at the expiry of the second deadline.

Yours faithfully,






JOgs

[alanalana]

Hello havinastella,

Complaints Department
Personal Loans Service Centre
Lloyds TSB
PO Box 43
Peterlee
County Durham
SR8 2YQ

11th November 2008

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Complaint and request for return of Payment Protection Insurance premium and contractual interest. Account no: xxxxxxxxxxxx

On the 06th June 2001, I took out an unsecured loan with your bank of £5000.

When I took it out, I signed up for Payment Protection Insurance [PPI]. At the time I was experiencing some short term financial difficulties and I was told that I could not have the loan unless I agreed to take the insurance. In addition your salesperson did not check my personal circumstances at the time of sale, which they are under obligation to do. If they had done, they would have realised that a PPI policy was useless to me due to my existing medical conditions.

No claim was ever made under the policy.

I now realize following the recent OFT and FSA investigations, that you mis-sold me this insurance policy, which I did not want and did not need. I believe I signed up for the insurance under economic duress and that your actions were unconscionable

I am writing to ask you to refund the premium paid together with interest equal to your APR at the time under the accepted principle of mutuality and reciprocity.

Your responsibilities

I would draw your attention to the terms of the contract which you agreed to at the time that I opened my account. It is an implied term of that contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully and in a manner which complies with UK law.

I am frankly shocked that you have operated my loan account in this way as I had always reposed confidence in your integrity and expertise as my fiduciary.

Firstly, I understand that at the time I entered into the contract with you your bank was running an incentive scheme to encourage your employees to sell PPI schemes, as were several other High Street banks. A former employee of yours has posted the following on a public website in September 2006:

I worked for Lloyds TSB up to 4 1/2 years ago - the points system you state is being used by RBS was used by Lloyds TSB more than 5 years ago.

Bosses and Regional Managers turn a blind eye to 'mis-selling' because they get bigger cash bonuses (or foreign holidays) than the staff selling the products. Even worse, Lloyds TSB use the disciplinary procedure to threaten staff with dismissal for failing to reach targets.

I was personally threatened in this way and in the end left, after 25 years service, to find much more fulfilling employment elsewhere.

Failing to hit targets was a bigger crime than mis-selling, which in my experience was brushed under the carpet. I wish I had been aware of this before I posted my letter.


I was not aware of this and even if it is untrue, I consider that there was a clear conflict of interest between your fiduciary responsibilities to me and the direct selling by your employees of PPI schemes, given the very large profit margins they generate.

No attempt was made to ascertain if the product provided was fit for purpose, suitable for my needs or if indeed if I really needed it at all. No inquiry was made as whether I had pre existing insurance for accident, illness or unemployment. I was not given a copy of the insurance policy nor were any rights to cancel explained. I believe you manifestly failed in your fiduciary responsibilities, your duty of care.

Secondly, I understand under the Consumer Credit Acts and following a House of Lords judgment that you are not allowed to make a loan conditional on taking PPI unless you include the costs of PPI as part of the charge for credit and not the credit itself.

You did not do this. You added it to the total for credit and then charged me further interest on the premium on top of the interest for the loan. This is unacceptable.

Finally I believe insurance contracts are contracts uberrimae fidei (contracts of the utmost good faith) which imposes on you a “duty of disclosure of all material facts because one party is in a strong position to know the truth.” Inter alia, I believe that you should have disclosed to me that the type of policy you sold me, a single payment premium, did not give a pro-rata refund in event of early settlement. I believe you should have made it clear to me that the policy generated large profits for you. You failed to do this. I believe that you have also therefore failed in your duty of disclosure. Your failure to disclose is misrepresentation at common law.

What I require

Your concealment of the act of mis-selling has prevented me from asserting my right until now. I believe that there are strong grounds for action against you under common law, statute and consumer regulations.

The original premium was £1172.42 debited to my account on 08th June 2001.

I require the £1172.42 premium charge refunded with interest from 08th June 2001 to date of £2093.21, totalling £3265.63.

The total claim is therefore £3265.63.

I have calculated interest at 14.8% APR., which I estimate was your APR at the time, reflecting the principal of mutuality and reciprocity. I am sure you will advise me if the APR at the time was different. Alternatively I will ask the Court to allow me statutory interest at 8% under S69 of the Count Court Act.

My targets to resolve this matter

I hope that you will enter into a sincere dialogue with me about this matter and I am writing this letter to you on the assumption that you will prefer to do this than merely respond with standard letters and leaflets. I will 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 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 14 days in which to reflect. I believe that this time frame is sufficient for a large company such as yours with its dedicated staff and departments. After that, there will be no further communication from me and I shall issue a claim at the expiry of the second deadline.

Yours faithfully,

Letter looks good to me but prod for other input. You certainly have a sound Claim IMO.

aa

[havinastella]

OK, letter from Lloyds dated 18th November.

[havinastella]

Now, Lloyds TSB are so good, they have responded to ALL of my Six concerns, in....................... .ONE DAY.

They have managed to contact the person that Mis sold the PPI, check that they had done everything correctly and above board, look fully into my complaint and write to me in ONE DAY.

I'm so glad that I am with this super bank

I really can't wait to get to court with this one, I hope the Judge will be almost as amazed as me.






















Shall I send them a Doctors letter explaining about the Epilepsy or just move to LBA?

THanks

JOgs

	Small Claims kit by Lawpack Sue your bank as many times as you like with just one Small Claims kit by Lawpack. Follow this link to read the review. The kit contains everything you need: instruction manual, templates, examples, forms and a comprehensive CDRom. Applies to England and Wales

[RedVixen]

Wow I am getting deja vu reading that

A real investigation would not only require them to talk to their saleguys who would obviously lie out of their backside to cover their own self serving greed but also contacting other customers of that saleman to see what they were told. Given the FSA has stated that all that about procedures being followed is a load of crap.

In my case they looked at the customer notes which I had already said were untrue but they ignored that. It was interesting with my Subject Access Request stuff that there were a couple of other face to face customer contacts not shown where funnily enough the person I was talking to was lying out of their backsides

Thing is it has to be said if I hadn't lost a full time job and be struggling to sort out my debt I probably wouldn't have looked that closely at it all though and there are probably thousands of others like that out there

	Subject Access Request A Subject Access Request is a demand which you can make to any organisation to disclose any personal information which they hold on you. The right to disclosure of data is provided by the Data Protection Act. There is no time limit. The organisation is obliged to reveal everything they have about you - which you ask for - as far back as you ask for. There are very few exceptions. It does not matter whether the data is held on microfiche, in an archive, on tape, in a cardex system, in sound recordings or in screen notes. Some companies are saying that they do not have to disclose where it would be difficult to do so - "disproportionate effort". This is untrue. Disproportionate effort refers to something else under the Act. If you are seeking bank charges information then you should ask for "all data held on you" and you should make it clear that you want everything as far back as it goes. Do not be put off by excuses. Do not accept being fobbed off. It is not in your bank's interest to make full disclosure to you. This means that it is in your interests to get it. If you have not started gathering your bank charges information yet, then you should start now. There will soon be a big rush once the OFT test case has been settled. Get all of your bank account informtion as far back as possible. At least as far back as 1995. If your bank says that they don't keep data as far back as this, don't accept it. Be persistent. They've got what you need in some form or other.

[RedVixen]

I think it is up to you

They haven't asked for proof of the epilepsy as further evidence so they obviously don't give a poo. You could try ringing them to see if you get any useful response

FOS or court decision time

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[alanalana]

havinastella,

time to decide I went the FOS route in August on Pre existing medical conditions just had a second offer of settlement check out my thread. If you have the medical proof and they did not ask questions about Pre existing medical conditions at the point of sale then you are on a good grounding for the FOS to deal with it.

aa

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[havinastella]

Hi Red and alana,

have asked the Doctors for letter regarding the epilepsy. They are supplying it next week and should have all the details from when the episodes started, follow up Dr and consultant appointments and time spent in hospital.

If thats not enough proof then I have no idea what is

Will wait to see the letter, send a copy off to Lloyds with my LBA.

Jogs

	Small Claims kit by Lawpack Sue your bank as many times as you like with just one Small Claims kit by Lawpack. Follow this link to read the review. The kit contains everything you need: instruction manual, templates, examples, forms and a comprehensive CDRom. Applies to England and Wales

[RedVixen]

Good luck but I suspect you will get a load of similar rubbish about it being your responsibility to check their products are suitable based on what they allege the salesman must have told you in the face of all evidence to the contrary

[havinastella]

Ok, this is going out tomorrow

Customer Care
Lloyds TSB Insurance
Tredegar Park
Newport
South Wales
NP10 8SB

2nd December 2008

Re: Loan account number: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Melanie

LETTER BEFORE ACTION

I am in receipt of your template generated letter dated 19th November 2008 in which you respond to my assertion that Lloyds TSB has mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) to me when I took out a loan on 06th June 2001. I am amazed that you managed to address all six of my concerns in less than a day.

I am shocked and disappointed in your continued assertions that you have conducted yourselves in a manner that is appropriate for an extremely large and well respected financial institution. I continue to assert that this has not been my experience. You have failed in your duty by selling me a product that did not suit my individual circumstances, you have failed in your duty to provide me with sufficient and appropriate information to allow me to make an informed choice when purchasing the compulsory PPI, and you have sold me a product that I assert is useless to me as pre-existing medical conditions were not ascertained by your salesperson which therefore rendered the policy useless to me as I would have been unable to make a claim on it.

I have enclosed a copy of a letter from my Doctor confirming my epilepsy.

At NO Time did any member of your staff ask about any pre-existing medical conditions.

PPI is not a compulsory product when taking out a loan, and adding PPI to my loan account in this way is a clear breach of both FSA regulations and guidelines and the Banking Code of Practice provided to the financial services industry. As a respected financial organisation, you will have been quite aware of these regulations and this makes your organisation's action even more serious. It is extremely poor business practice to say the least.



In taking out a loan with Lloyds TSB, I reserved the right as your customer to receive appropriate information to enable me to take out a compulsory insurance product that suited my demands and needs. Lloyds TSB had an obligation to me the borrower, to provide sufficient and appropriate information to enable me to make an informed decision as to the suitability of both the loan and the PPI to meet my needs and financial circumstances. I should also have been made aware of alternative options available, or comparative costs of similar PPI products from other suppliers, which information as a well known financial institution, you would most certainly have had access to.

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) provides guidelines which your organisation should adhere to while making both Advised and Non-Advised sales. Where a Non-Advised sale takes place, as in my own case "The customer must, however, still receive sufficient information on the product to enable them to make an informed decision as to whether it meets their own demands and needs."(FSA) These regulations apply to the lender whether the sale is made over the telephone or as in my case face-to-face.

At no point did I receive any such information, either by letter, document or telephone call which followed the above guideline. The documents that you have provided copies of do not contain any of the information that I have outlined above and cannot, therefore, be deemed as meeting the standard of care which you should have provided.

I assert that I have been deprived of the right to choose PPI when taking out the loan, and that you have taken advantage of my lack of knowledge.

I reposed absolute trust in your ability as a respected financial institution to provide a reasonable level of care and skill in ensuring that my best interests were met when taking out a financial product with your organisation. This has not been the case and I am extremely shocked and disappointed.

I would further suggest that the Principles of Business which are legally binding on Lloyds TSB under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and which are contained in the FSA Handbook, have not been followed. Therefore you are in breach of regulations.

I would remind you that the FSA takes the mis-selling of PPI extremely seriously and you will be aware that recent investigations by both the FSA and the Competition Commission have found that lenders continue to engage in "poor sales practices" and that "customers were not informed orally of both the monthly and total cost of their PPI". (FSA report, 30 September 2008.)

I request the return of £3285.63 within 14 days of receipt of this letter by you. If you do not comply with my request, I will have no option but to escalate my claim to the courts. I should remind you that the FOS take the issue of mis-selling of PPI extremely seriously and in many cases, have imposed large fines on financial institutions who are in breach of regulations.

Yours sincerely









Hope it's ok


JOgs

	Record your calls Follow this link to read the review of the Truecall telephone recorder and call manager. This is the Rolls Royce of call recorders. It's a bit pricey but if you buy it with our special offer you will get it at cost: about 20% discount. How much do we make on the deal? - Nothing at all. You can also buy cheaper devices from Maplins. Truecall is the best - but the important thing is to record your calls.

	The Banking Code Follow this link to read the Banking Code in full. Ofen ignored by its subscribers, half-heartedly monitored and poorly enforced

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[alanalana]

Hello havinastella,

Just one or two minors for you before you post. Hope you don't mind.

Ok, this is going out tomorrow

Customer Care
Lloyds TSB Insurance
Tredegar Park
Newport
South Wales
NP10 8SB

2nd December 2008

Re: Loan account number: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Melanie (looking at the letter content I would keep this more formal then first name terms)

LETTER BEFORE ACTION

I am in receipt of your template generated letter dated 19th November 2008 in which you respond to my assertion that Lloyds TSB has mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) to me when I took out a loan on 06th June 2001. I am amazed that you managed to address all six of my concerns in less than a day. ( I get your drift with this but it could just rub them up the wrong way. However you feel it could be better to thank them for addressing your concerns promptly) If you get to Court it would be nice for the DJ to see you are a very nice Litigant in Person willing to go all the way to resolve the issues you have over mis-selling (Just a thought)

I am shocked and disappointed (and upset) in (by) your continued assertions that you have conducted yourselves in a manner that is appropriate for an extremely large and well respected financial institution. I continue to assert that this has not been my experience. You have failed in your duty by selling me a product that did not suit my individual circumstances, you have failed in your duty to provide me with sufficient and appropriate information to allow me to make an informed choice when purchasing the compulsory PPI, and you have sold me a product that I assert (maintain) You have used the word assert/assertions lots of times is useless to me as pre-existing medical conditions were not ascertained (fully confirmed) by your salesperson which therefore rendered the policy useless to me as I would have been unable to make a claim on it.

I have enclosed a copy of a letter from my Doctor confirming my epilepsy.

At NO Time did any member of your staff ask about any pre-existing medical conditions.

PPI is not a compulsory product when taking out a loan, and adding PPI to my loan account in this way is a clear breach of both FSA regulations and guidelines and the Banking Code of Practice provided to the financial services industry. As a (Well) butter them up and put them off guard respected financial organisation, you will have been quite aware of these regulations and this makes your organisation's action even more serious. It is (In my opinion) Keep it to the singular although I get your drift extremely poor business practice to say the least.



In taking out a loan with Lloyds TSB, I reserved the right as your customer to receive appropriate information to enable me to take out a compulsory insurance product that suited my demands and needs. Lloyds TSB had an obligation to me the borrower, to provide sufficient and appropriate information to enable me to make an informed decision as to the suitability of both the loan and the PPI to meet my needs and financial circumstances. I should also have been made aware of alternative options available, or comparative costs of similar PPI products from other suppliers, which information as a well known financial institution, you would most certainly have had access to.

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) provides guidelines which your organisation should adhere to while making both Advised and Non-Advised sales. Where a Non-Advised sale takes place, as in my own case "The customer must, however, still receive sufficient information on the product to enable them to make an informed decision as to whether it meets their own demands and needs."(FSA) These regulations apply to the lender whether the sale is made over the telephone or as in my case face-to-face.

At no point did I receive any such information, either by letter, document or telephone call which followed the above guideline. The documents that you have provided copies of do not contain any of the information that I have outlined above and cannot, therefore, be deemed as meeting the standard of care which you should have provided.

I assert that I have been deprived of the right to choose PPI when taking out the loan, and that you have taken advantage of my lack of knowledge (about the subject of Payment Protection Insurance).

I reposed absolute trust in your ability as a respected financial institution to provide a reasonable level of care and skill in ensuring that my best interests were met when taking out a financial product with your organisation. This has not been the case and as I have already mentioned I am extremely shocked and disappointed in your treatment of me as a Customer.

I would further suggest that the Principles of Business which are legally binding on Lloyds TSB under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and which are contained in the FSA Handbook, have not been followed. Therefore you are in breach of regulations.

I would remind you that the FSA, FOS and the Competition Commissioners Office takes (take) the mis-selling of PPI extremely seriously and you will be aware that recent investigations by both the FSA and the Competition Commissions Office have found that lenders continue to engage in "poor sales practices" and that "customers were not informed orally of both the monthly and total cost of their PPI". (FSA report, 30 September 2008.)

I request (now require) bit more meaty IMO the return of £3285.63 within 14 days of receipt of this letter by you. If you do not (fail to) use the negative to add punch comply with my request, I will have (You will leave me with) no (other) Make them the bad guys option but to escalate my claim to the courts. I should remind you that the FOS take the issue of mis-selling of PPI extremely seriously and in many cases, have imposed large fines on financial institutions who are in breach of regulations.
(A Repeat of above comments and as mentioned it is the FSA who impose the fines on these Alleged robbers)

Yours sincerely

I have been a bit (Lot) picky with this but other than my pedantic nature you have one really excellent letter covering all the issues. I hope you forgive me for the comments your points in red and my suggestions in blue with underlines as explanations.

I believe you are on a winner with this.

PS are you going down the Court route or the FOS?

aa

	Record your calls Follow this link to read the review of the Truecall telephone recorder and call manager. This is the Rolls Royce of call recorders. It's a bit pricey but if you buy it with our special offer you will get it at cost: about 20% discount. How much do we make on the deal? - Nothing at all. You can also buy cheaper devices from Maplins. Truecall is the best - but the important thing is to record your calls.

	The Banking Code Follow this link to read the Banking Code in full. Ofen ignored by its subscribers, half-heartedly monitored and poorly enforced

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[havinastella]

Hi AA, once again many thanks for your excellent imput on the letter.

I shall send the re-jigged letter tomorrow and await the reply. As I have no rush for the money I may follow your advise and use the FOS (May need some help as not gone that way before)

Once again excellent advice.

Thanks

JOgs

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[alanalana]

Hi Jogs,

I shall send the re-jigged letter tomorrow and await the reply. As I have no rush for the money I may follow your advise and use the FOS (May need some help as not gone that way before)

I will always try and help where I can have a look at this thread for information on the Court action route.....

If you are Planning to go to County Court read this urgently

I would suggest the FOS route is a good starting point in view of the above link. It will be of course you shout as to how you proceed on your quest to regain your money.

Keep at it help is at hand within CAG

aa

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[havinastella]

Thanks AA,

Excellent link!

It shows even with gross mis-selling, we still need a cast iron defence.

Luckily I have you to help me


JOgs

[alanalana]

Hello JOgs,

Thanks AA,

Excellent link!

It shows even with gross mis-selling, we still need a cast iron defence.

Luckily I have you to help me


JOgs

Only with general advice on PPI and the FOS and letters of complaint. I have never been down the Court route and you would be advised to seek more qualified assistance on the Court procedures than rely on myself. Offers of help where I can but legal stuff is usually way above my knowledge although I am learning as I go along.

aa

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[havinastella]

Right, little update

Letter above was sent to Lloyds, signed for on the 11th December 2008. Had not received a reply from Lloyds, so prompted Mrs to phone them to confirm receipt of letter. Spoke to Luke who looked on the system and confirmed that leter had been received and he also stated 'Oh, I notice that you also sent in a letter from your Dr, confirming that you had a medical problem'

I asked why no response had been sent to the letter and was advised that their letter of 19th Nov was their final response. I pointed out that their 'FINAL RESPONSE' letter asked for more information into a previous medical condition and this had been addressed in our letter of 8th December and he had just confirmed that they have a letter from the Dr confirming the pre existing medical condition. Luke didn't really know how to answer that question and said he would escalate the letter for a response.

So today we receive this




Can you believe the sheer stupidity of these people????

Now, do I waste my time with another response or now pass it to the FOS?

Jogs

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.