Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
After reading the threads I decided to have a look at my old agreement for a car which I bought in April 2001.
During that time I was working full time, had a generous package of insurance with my employers that covered me for much of what GE PIP covered.
I was told by the sales person that I would need to take this to enable me to get the vehicle as I was experiencing difficulty in obtaining credit.
The financial details are as follows:
Total Cash Price £9866
Initial Payment 400
made up of cash 788
part exchange (3888)
Amount of Credit 9466
HP Charges 6062
Acceptance fee 40
Option fee 50
Total charge for credit 6152
Total Amount Payable £16018
Apr 30.9%
Balance and Hp charges £15618
Payment 48 months
48 Monthly Payments £323.50
Monthly Payment with Insurance Premium £388.20
The amount of PPI is £3105.60 over the full term of the agreement.
I also paid the loan early so had it for 19 months.
I signed the agreement as I knew I didn't have much of an option (no sign no purchase!)
I have written to them using the first letter from MSE on 21/9/07
and received a letter back on 27/9/07. The letter says that I had signed the agreement and that the car dealership is independently authorised by the FSA to provide and sell insurance products directly. As the sale of insurance was made with the dealership we would not be liable for this action.
Can anyone provide me with the next steps. Are they right in what they are saying? do I have to go back to the car dealership??
You will need to take up your complaint for mis sold PPI with the Car dealer that sold it to you.
The car dealer would have been acting as an agent for GE, GE would have provided the finance and insurance on the paperwork recieved from the Dealer.
Hope that Helps.
Ian
Lloyds TSB -PPI - Full refund . 05/09/06 (As Seen on TV)
Halifax settled in Full.. 22/09/06
TSB First Claim SETTLED IN FULL 19/10/06
Second Claim to Lloyds TSB - Settled in Full
Firstplus - early settlement interest charges - Challenged the use of the rule of 78 - SETTLED IN FULL 12/1/07
PPI - GE Money / Purpleloans / Firstplus - Now Settled after 1 year long hard fight.
If my post has helped you, please click the scales! :grin:
Anything said is my opinion and how I understand the law, always consult professional legal advice before taking something to court.
You can send your complaint to their head office, remember to state all the facts clearly along with the salesmans name (if you know it) Date etc etc.
If you want you can PM me a copy of your letter and I will have a look over it before you send it of.
Good Luck
Ian
Lloyds TSB -PPI - Full refund . 05/09/06 (As Seen on TV)
Halifax settled in Full.. 22/09/06
TSB First Claim SETTLED IN FULL 19/10/06
Second Claim to Lloyds TSB - Settled in Full
Firstplus - early settlement interest charges - Challenged the use of the rule of 78 - SETTLED IN FULL 12/1/07
PPI - GE Money / Purpleloans / Firstplus - Now Settled after 1 year long hard fight.
If my post has helped you, please click the scales! :grin:
Anything said is my opinion and how I understand the law, always consult professional legal advice before taking something to court.
I recently sent a letter asking back for mis-sold PPI
I have recieved a letter back saying:
Quote
We have made futher investigations into your complaint and have decided you have no grounds on which to claim a refund of premiums. The policy that you purchased was not a single premium policy as you intimated, rather it was a montly premium and your policy clearly states that "you must pay us (GE Custom) an insurance premium of £64.70 per month for so long as this agreement lasts", therefore you did not make payments of £3105.60 as stated. I should also mention that GE Custom were not fined by the FSA, it was in fact GE Capital Bank Ltd.
Having taken advice on this matter we are able to inform you that because the policy is no longer in force (it was stopped on the 11th November 2002) the fos will not be in a position to assist you in this matter as they only started regulating our industry from the 14th January 2005.
I would also add that during the period you took out your policy cover we had no other complaints regarding the mis-sale of Credit Protection Insurance , which leads us to believe our staff were not mis-selling insurance contracts.
I am sorry to advise you of this decision but we believe we have acted in good faith when selling you your insurance poliy and should anything have happened during this period you would have had all the benefits of the protection it provided.
Yours ...... [End]
My response to the above
1. The full amount on the loan includes ppi, and shows as a total of loan agreement + ppi. I paid back the loan early, which would have included ppi.
2. Well I got the GE Capital Bank confused with GE Custom thinking they were the same company
3. Of course they have not had any other complaints because consumers have only been made aware of this recently. :o
4. I couldn't have the benefits as I had a previous medical condtion which they would not have covered me for and I was never asked. I also had a generous employment package that would have paid out for 6 moths + private healthcare insurance.
I was never asked about any of the above and when I purchased the car.
Any advice??? I felt compelled to share their snotty response with you all
Just because the FSA did not regulate them till 2005 does not mean you do not have a claim. Nice try with their reply though!
You have a claim. The only issue would be the statute of limitations is my thought. If the policy ended in 2002, you could only realistically claim from 2001 - 2002 which is the one year.
On what you have written you could claim it back is my thoughts on the matter. Maybe someone else will share added light.
Thanks ChloeJane and Debt survivor for you replies.
The grounds I gave for mis-selling were:
1. I could not obtain the loan without taking PPI
2. I was never asked if I had any other insurance that would cover the loan.
3. It was not explained to me that there were certain exclusions within the policy that could affect me and invalidate the policy.
I had generous employment benefits which covered me for time off work with full pay for upto 6 months.
I also had a private healthcare policy in place and I had suffered from an injury only 5 months prior to purchasing the vehicle, which I now know would have been one of the exclusions which would invalidate the ppi.
You have a claim. The only issue would be the statute of limitations is my thought. If the policy ended in 2002, you could only realistically claim from 2001 - 2002 which is the one year.
As the loan agreement ended less than 6 years ago the Statute of limitations will have no bearing on your case, all the PPI payments are linked to the loan agreement so you can go as far back as the agreement was in force, IMHO.
I would press on with a lba, in the meantime would you mind posting up more details of the loan ie start date, APR, loan amount, payments etc. I take it from your figures above you had the loan for 4 years but is always worth having a second pair (or third fourth fifth etc) of eyes check over the figures, you never know they may owe you more than you think
Victory over Lloyds PPI claim £2606 click! Barclaycard lazygoing - £580 + £398 contractual int at 17.7 % click! (Received partial payment £110 21/11/06) The GF's battle against RBS click! stayed awaiting the end of the world
As the loan agreement ended less than 6 years ago the statute of limitations will have no bearing on your case, all the PPI payments are linked to the loan agreement so you can go as far back as the agreement was in force, IMHO.
This is a difficult one. My understanding is that each insurance payment in an on-going agreement would be a seperate cause of action, since the agreement would effectively be a rolling contract.
This would tie in line with the situation over mortgages - in that the capital of a mortgage is subject to a twelve year limitation. But the charges levied on the account only carry a six year limitation. That would seem to indicate that there is no direct linkage.
Having said that, an and/or claim that either section 32 or section 14A of the LA should apply will, in my opinion, get round the issue.
Alan, Derby, UK.
PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING
EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS
Or you may wish to buy one of these great resources:
Click on the above link to place your order - payment by Paypal.
_________________________ _______
Sorry, but I cannot deal with your case by PM - please ask questions in your own thread. If you do not get a reply within 48 hours send a PM, with a link to the relevant thread, to any Site Team Member.
DO NOT SEND QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR CLAIM TO ADMIN, or our WEBMASTER - YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE A REPLY.
Advice given is purely my opinion, and is not based on any legal training.
As the loan agreement ended less than 6 years ago the statute of limitations will have no bearing on your case, all the PPI payments are linked to the loan agreement so you can go as far back as the agreement was in force, IMHO.
I would press on with a lba, in the meantime would you mind posting up more details of the loan ie start date, APR, loan amount, payments etc. I take it from your figures above you had the loan for 4 years but is always worth having a second pair (or third fourth fifth etc) of eyes check over the figures, you never know they may owe you more than you think
skb
Ok Here are the details of the loan agreement
Total Cash Price (including VAT) £9866
Initial Payment 400
Amount of Credit 9466
HP Charges 6062
Acceptance Fee 40
Option Fee 50
Total Charge for Credit 6152
Total Amount Payable 16018
APR 30.9%
Balance + HP Charges 15528
Payable by 48 rental payments each of the amounts shown below. The first rental is payable 1 month after the date you signed the agreement or at such later date as we shall notify you in writing and the est at consecutive monthly intervals after that. The acceptance fee is payable with the first rental payment. The option fe is paable with the final payment.
Monthly Monthly Payment
Payment with insurance premium
48 payments of.. £323.50 £388.20
(The bit about ppi)
You must pay us an insurance premium of £64.70 per month for so long as this agreement lasts.
[END]
This agreement was dated 24/04/01 and I ended the agreement on 16/12/02.
If I settled this early after 18 months, would the insurance not have been included as part of the settlement fee?
Hope this helps in uderstanding, because I'm confused as to all the legal terms.
This agreement was dated 24/04/01 and I ended the agreement on 16/12/02.
If I settled this early after 18 months, would the insurance not have been included as part of the settlement fee?
Hope this helps in uderstanding, because I'm confused as to all the legal terms.
The policy that you purchased was not a single premium policy as you intimated, rather it was a montly premium and your policy clearly states that "you must pay us (GE Custom) an insurance premium of £64.70 per month for so long as this agreement lasts", therefore you did not make payments of £3105.60 as stated.
Their terms would seem to indicate that you would only pay the insurance premium while the agreement was active, so if you end the agreement early you wouldnt pay the full 48 months worth.
So on the face of it it looks like you should be claiming 18 x £64.70 = £1164.60.
Its worth checking though but will need to know what the settlement figure was that you paid (and also if it contained an early settlement fee)
Victory over Lloyds PPI claim £2606 click! Barclaycard lazygoing - £580 + £398 contractual int at 17.7 % click! (Received partial payment £110 21/11/06) The GF's battle against RBS click! stayed awaiting the end of the world
Their terms would seem to indicate that you would only pay the insurance premium while the agreement was active, so if you end the agreement early you wouldnt pay the full 48 months worth.
So on the face of it it looks like you should be claiming 18 x £64.70 = £1164.60.
Its worth checking though but will need to know what the settlement figure was that you paid (and also if it contained an early settlement fee)
skb
Thanks for all your help so far skb it has been fantastic in helping me find my way around the agreement.
The settlement figure was £8015.00 which was an early settlement figure (i am led to believe).
I know it maybe a pain to do, but can you post up their defence, type or scan?.. If it's a scan, just make sure you cover up your details.
When we know more, we can help.
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.
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.
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 laim 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
GE Custom not playing Ball
is £3105.60 over the full term of the agreement.
Reply With Quote
(As Seen on TV) 
Originally Posted by ChloeJane
in helping me find my way around the agreement.
Defence received!!
Re: Defence received!!
