Thread: Smel vs GoDebt (YCC) PPI

Hi there,

I have been successful on reclaiming bank charges and getting Defaults taken off accounts but PPI is a whole new ball game and I need some help.

Me and my partner bought a car through Yes Car Credit (YCC) - or Direct Auto Finance - in 2003. We were certainly forced into buying PPI, I know this because I clearly remember saying I didn't want it and the woman told us to get the loan we had to get the PPI.

In 2004 the car was taken from our doorstep without even a knock because we had fallen behind in the crippling payments. Ever since we have been making reduced payments. Until December 2007.

I cancelled the DD for these payments because I worked out that we have paid for the car loan and were paying off the PPI and I had decided to pursue this claim. We are now receiving threatening and agressive letters and calls from Go Debt (who took over the debt back when the car was taken) regarding the cancellation of the DD despite us telling them we were disputing the remainder owed.

I believe - like other debts - that if an amount is in dispute the regular payments may be held. I did this with Capital One and Npower during disputes.

Now I need to get the ball rolling on this claim but I want one section of the loan cleared up. The PPI loan was a monthly paid premium at 28.6APR over 48 months. However, the Additional Optional Non Cancellable Insurances (as they put it) includes PPI, Mechanical Breakdown Insurance and GAP Insurance (whatever that is).
So, do I claim back all three Insurances or just the PPI?

I need to know this to work out the amount owed.

In addition I'm not seeing many successes here regarding car loans - are there any?

Smel (good to be back)

Similar Threads:

• Godebt/advice needed.
• PPI and YCC / DAF
• Smel V Natwest...**WON**
• Smel making a claim!! Please help!

Hi again,

I have writen my first letter to Go Debt - can someone give me any feedback?
I have highlighted in red parts that are specific to our claim that may need checking. Notice how I have included all Premium Insurances in the letter not just PPI as explained in my first thread.

Go Debt Limited
The Complaints Department
Dumfries House
Dumfries Place
Cardiff
CF10 3ZF

23 February 2008

Dear Sir/Madam,

Your Ref: *****
Our Ref: ****

We believe we have been mis-sold a payment protection insurance policy and would like to request a full refund of my premiums, plus interest paid up to date.

We took out a £**** loan (total payable) at the Yes Car Credit Chertsey Branch on 00.00.03 and also bought additional optional insurances including Payment Protection (PPI) which would cost me an extra £****, reduced by a down payment of £*** to £**** over the life of the loan. The name of the salesperson who sold me the policy is ____ _____. The total amount of my premiums plus the down payment plus interest (total amount payable) is £****.


We purchased the above policy from you but now believe that we were mis-sold this policy for the following reasons:

• The additional Insurances were made a condition of obtaining the loan.
• We were not told that we could purchase any Insurances from another company that would suitably cover the loan.
• The terms and conditions and the additional cost of the Insurances were not fully explained and we were not offered the chance to read them through before being asked to sign.
  

In addition, your company – Go Debt Limited - has been aggressive towards us making the remaining PPI repayments despite money we believe being owed to us (the amount of loan for the car has been paid). We have been threatened with Bankruptcy over the telephone and only more recently by letters.

We stopped loan payments in December 2007 when we calculated that we had overpaid on the loan. We will not resume these payments whilst this account matter is in dispute.

Whilst the total loan has not been fully paid, we have calculated that we have paid over the due amount for the loan of the car. Therefore we are requesting a full refund of all insurance payments to date and the cancellation of the remaining loan amount. As we believe we have been deprived of this money we also expect 8% statutory interest, the amount a court would award, to be added to each payment made. The total PPI payments made plus statutory interest total £***.

If we do not receive a favourable response from you within eight weeks I will pursue this claim through the Financial Ombudsman and/or the Small Claims Court.

Yours sincerely


Feedback please, I'd love to post this off on Monday morning as they are threatening action against us.

Smel

Originally Posted by smel24

Hi again,

I have writen my first letter to Go Debt - can someone give me any feedback?
I have highlighted in red parts that are specific to our claim that may need checking. Notice how I have included all Premium Insurances in the letter not just PPI as explained in my first thread.

Go Debt Limited
The Complaints Department
Dumfries House
Dumfries Place
Cardiff
CF10 3ZF

23 February 2008

Dear Sir/Madam,

Your Ref: *****
Our Ref: ****

We believe we have been mis-sold a payment protection insurance policy and would like to request a full refund of my premiums, plus interest paid up to date.

On 00.00.03, We took out a £**** loan (total payable) at the Yes Car Credit Chertsey Branch and also bought additional optional insurances including Payment Protection (PPI) which would cost me an extra £****, reduced by a down payment of £*** to £**** over the life of the loan. The name of the salesperson who sold me the policy is ____ _____. The total amount of my premiums plus the down payment plus interest (total amount payable) is £****.


We purchased the above policy from you, under pressure, and now believe that we were mis-sold this policy for the following reasons:

• The additional Insurances were made a condition of obtaining the loan.
• We were not told that we could purchase any Insurances from another company that would suitably cover the loan.
• The terms and conditions and the additional cost of the Insurances were not fully explained and we were not offered the chance to read them through before being asked to sign.
• No attempt by your sales representative was made to ascertain if the policies were sold fit for purpose. No inquiries were made as to employment status or pre-existing medical condition.
• We were not given the option of signing an agreement without the added insurances.

In addition, your company – Go Debt Limited - have been verbally aggressive towards us on the telephone, demanding payment of the remaining disputed PPI balance, whilst we have viewed our concerns regarding the mis-selling of insurances, that we did not want or need. We believe that our obligation in paying the balance of the loan for the car is now complete and view that your Company has mis-lead us into paying for insurances that were mis-sold to us at the time we entered into a agreement.. We have been threatened with Bankruptcy over the telephone and only more recently by letters. This is unacceptable.

I have enclosed a legal request under section 77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a true copy of my credit agreement. I enclose the fee of £1. It would be prudent that you comply with this request under the statutory timelimits allowed for complaince. Add or delete this bit

In december 2007, after we became aware of the investigation by the Office of Fair Trading and the FSA we believe we have mis-sold these extortionate insurances by your Company. We calculated that the payments made by us to your Company had exceeded the amount payable for the car loan and therefore stopped further payments until this matter has been investigated. We will not resume these payments whilst this account matter is in dispute. We will be reporting your Company's conduct to the Office of Fair Trading, Financial Services Authority and Trading standards for their investigation.

We are requesting a full refund of all insurance payments to date and the cancellation of the remaining loan amount. As we believe we have been deprived of this money we also expect 8% statutory interest, the amount a court would award, to be added to each payment made. The total PPI payments made plus statutory interest total £***.
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 contact the Financial Ombudsman for their investigation and /or pursue a claim via the county court at the expiry of the second deadline.

Yours faithfully,





Feedback please, I'd love to post this off on Monday morning as they are threatening action against us.

Smel

Hello Smel,

I have added a few bits, see what your think??????? Your letter at the end of the day.

I would personally in the letter ask for a copy of your credit agreement that you signed. This is a legal request under section 77 of the CCA. It costs £1 and there are legal timelimits for their compliance. Again personally I feel that you have to attack them from every angle that you can. To make sure that they have complied with consumer legislation. It can be a few more bows to your arrow, but you have to see what they come up with.

Creditors and DCAs - Letter Templates & Budget Planner

You will find it here in this link you need letter N.

Best wishes and good luck to you

Many thanks Hellhasnofury, your addidtions to the letter are brilliant and I will amend my letter accordingly.

I didn't add the request for the credit agreement because I have our original copies - should I still ask to make them work a little harder?

I'm glad you agree with the bit in the letter that we shouldn't be making payments while it's in dispute - we told them we were disputing it and they were very threatening towards us.

I will post this tomorrow, first thing - unless anyone else has any comments?

Originally Posted by smel24

I'm glad you agree with the bit in the letter that we shouldn't be making payments while it's in dispute - we told them we were disputing it and they were very threatening towards us.

Hello Smel,



Sorry I think you have mis-understood.

I must confess to only repeating your remarks regarding the non-payments in the letter, personally I would not actually agree with that.

You need to be very careful regarding the withdrawment of payments from them, there I think has to been some legal reasoning, to withdraw payment, ie no credit agreement or a credit agreement that is somehow incorrect, so unenforceable.

They can and will default your account and even may start recovery action against you. so this may not be without consequence, so do think very carefully about this action.

Oh right, thanks for the advice. I'll restart the DD and re-work the letter to mention ongoing payments.

Originally Posted by smel24

Oh right, thanks for the advice. I'll restart the DD and re-work the letter to mention ongoing payments.

Hello Smel,

I would just really hate for you to get yourself into a situation that would not be favourable long term. If they default you it remains on your credit file for 6yrs.

There are more ways to skin a cat. Send off the section 77/78 for a copy of your credit agreement and wait and see what they come up with. I know you have it, but do they If they default in sending you your ca after the 12 working days + 2 days postage, you are then legally entitled to stop payments to them. The account then would be in clear legal dispute If then after 30days, the 12days they have committed a criminal breach of the cca and can be heavily fined by the enforcement authories. You have to attack them from every angle and hopefully you will build up a good case for repayment of your PPI and other insurances

Did you sent a SAR???????.

Hi all,

For whatever reason I can't remember I stopped pursuing GoDebt/Direct Auto Finance but now am pursuing this again and am in a much better situation to do so.

The loan is now paid off - we settled with GoDebt for a reduced sum of the remaining of the loan having had the car taken from us a few years ago.

I'm pretty sure the PPI was still payable despite the car being taken but as we settled the account with a greatly reduced amount I'm not sure where we stand on getting a refund back for the PPI.

The total comes to over £3.5k (with all insurances and interest etc.) so do I claim this or deduct the amount we were spared by settled with a reduced amount?

I have sent of a SAR and CA today although I have every piece of paperwork anyway.

Help on amount to claim would be greatly appreciated!

I have drafted my initial letter for the PPI claim but this is assuming I go for the total PPI amount and not take off what we didn't pay through settlement (see comment above).

I should probably make it clear that Go Debt who bought the debt from Direct Auto Finance settled for the reduced amount. It was not a direct settlement with DAF who as we know are the ones we claim from.

Okay, here's my draft letter, comments welcome:

Agreement Reference:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Our Request

We believe we have been mis-sold a payment protection insurance policy and would like to request a full refund of the premiums, plus interest, plus 8% statutory interest, the amount a court would award.

We took out a £xxxx loan (total payable) at the Yes Car Credit Chertsey Branch on (date) and also bought additional optional insurances including Payment Protection (PPI) at £xxxx, Mechanical Breakdown Insurance at £xxx and GAP Insurance at £xxx. Interest on this at £xxxx plus 8% statutory interest at £xxx.
The total amount of the premiums plus interest and statutory interest (total amount payable) is £xxxx.

We purchased the above policy from you but now believe that we were mis-sold this policy for the following reasons:

• The additional Insurances were made a condition of obtaining the loan.
• We were not told that we could purchase any Insurances from another company that would suitably cover the loan.
• The terms and conditions and the additional cost of the Insurances were not fully explained and we were not offered the chance to read them through before being asked to sign.

The fact that we were not given the correct information when the policy was sold to us; your saleswoman stated specifically that taking out the policy was essential for us to get the associated credit even though we had said that we did not want insurance cover. The saleswoman was pushy so much as completing the contract for us whilst explaining that the PPI was essential implying that not all PPI covers were optional. We were not given a chance to discuss the essential PPI and were rushed through to sign the contract.

Because the saleswoman stated that the Insurance cover was essential we were led to believe that we must take out the PPI in order to get the credit for the car and therefore signed the contract based on false information provided to us.

We also believe that the saleswoman had no financial background and was not selling the PPI in our best interests as she did not explain thoroughly the details or even benefits of the PPI. It was purely discussed to state that the cover was essential to us getting the credit.

We do not believe being forced to buy this policy as part of the loan was a fair and reasonable obligation as we did not need this insurance and said at the time of taking the loan that we did not want it.

We signed the contract under false pretences having been given incorrect and incomplete information.

We are now requesting the total refund of £xxxx as we have recently been advised that this was mis-selling cover to us. Having been told by your saleswoman that it was essential we had no other reason to believe that this was not true.

If we do not receive a favourable response or satisfactory justification of the stated selling behavior from you within 14 days we will pursue this claim through the Small Claims Court.

Yours sincerely

Bump.

Help needed, see above!

From what you say, it seems clear that you were mis-sold (at least) the PPI.

However, your options for pursuing this now seem to depend on the exact terms of the settlement you previously reached with GoDebt...

You said:

Originally Posted by smel24

The loan is now paid off - we settled with GoDebt for a reduced sum of the remaining of the loan having had the car taken from us a few years ago.

I'm pretty sure the PPI was still payable despite the car being taken but as we settled the account with a greatly reduced amount I'm not sure where we stand on getting a refund back for the PPI.

...so there was obviously a considerable advantage to you in the settlement.

What I would question is whether or not the settlement, either expressly or by action of law, constrains you from now pursuing the some or all of the PPI claim.

Did either party have the benefit of legal advice when the settlement was negotiated? Was it expressly in full and final settlement? Were any proceedings issued? Was a there a formal Order or an exchange of correspondence?

I think its pretty safe to say, that a Court would not (unless obliged to do so) allow you to benefit from the compromise an agreement and then benefit again (and disproportionately) by reclaiming the whole of the amount of the PPI that would have been payable if the Agreement had been fulfilled.

This is probably best illustrated by an example (which ignores interest for simplicity's sake).

Let's say the original loan was £4,000 and the PPI was £2,000. 1 year in, they recover the car and a little while later, you both agree to settle at £1,500. If the court were to accept your claim now and refund the whole of the PPI, the real effect would be to retrospectively impose a settlement of -£500 on the Lender.

You may well think this is right, because the PPI shouldn't have been mis-sold. However, from the Lender's point of view, they would have lent you £4,000 for a year AND paid you £500 for the privilege... In my view a Court would not be likely to permit this because objectively it could not be said to give business efficacy to the parties intentions when the Agreement was entered into.

Furthermore, a Court may consider that as a consequence of the settlement, you are estopped from pursuing any claim arising from the Agreement; and it is not inconceivable that an unsuccessful and estopped PPI claim could, of itself, provide the Lender with a claim in damages against you!

This seems to me to be an example of where the fos route is a much more attractive alternative to the Small Claims Court.

The FOS will be primarily concerned with the mis-selling allegation and even if the Lender seeks to put the terms of the settlement in issue, I cannot see how the FOS could (within their remit) consider it when making an adjudication.

For your part, you would, I imagine, maintain that in any event the settlement and the PPI are 2 completely separate issues and that the settlement was reached either expressly or impliedly on the basis that it was a settlement of the Lender's lawful claim against you; rather than a settlement of the Lender's claim to the extent that it unlawfully included mis-sold PPI and interest thereon.

If, as I suggest, the FOS were ultimately to find in your favour and to an extent that was much greater than a Court would had they been called on to decide... it would be a matter for the Lender whether they sought to challenge the FOS' decision.

Insofar as I am aware the FOS ajudication is binding as a matter of regulatory authority, rather than law. In other words... it ain't law but Lenders have to abide by the decisions, if they want to stay in the lending business.

Oh, and the Limitation clock is ticking loudly... so you may need to factor that in.

Originally Posted by skeptic

From what you say, it seems clear that you were mis-sold (at least) the PPI.

However, your options for pursuing this now seem to depend on the exact terms of the settlement you previously reached with GoDebt...

You said:



...so there was obviously a considerable advantage to you in the settlement.

What I would question is whether or not the settlement, either expressly or by action of law, constrains you from now pursuing the some or all of the PPI claim.

Did either party have the benefit of legal advice when the settlement was negotiated? Was it expressly in full and final settlement? Were any proceedings issued? Was a there a formal Order or an exchange of correspondence?

I think its pretty safe to say, that a Court would not (unless obliged to do so) allow you to benefit from the compromise an agreement and then benefit again (and disproportionately) by reclaiming the whole of the amount of the PPI that would have been payable if the Agreement had been fulfilled.

This is probably best illustrated by an example (which ignores interest for simplicity's sake).

Let's say the original loan was £4,000 and the PPI was £2,000. 1 year in, they recover the car and a little while later, you both agree to settle at £1,500. If the court were to accept your claim now and refund the whole of the PPI, the real effect would be to retrospectively impose a settlement of -£500 on the Lender.

You may well think this is right, because the PPI shouldn't have been mis-sold. However, from the Lender's point of view, they would have lent you £4,000 for a year AND paid you £500 for the privilege... In my view a Court would not be likely to permit this because objectively it could not be said to give business efficacy to the parties intentions when the Agreement was entered into.

Furthermore, a Court may consider that as a consequence of the settlement, you are estopped from pursuing any claim arising from the Agreement; and it is not inconceivable that an unsuccessful and estopped PPI claim could, of itself, provide the Lender with a claim in damages against you!

This seems to me to be an example of where the fos route is a much more attractive alternative to the Small Claims Court.

The FOS will be primarily concerned with the mis-selling allegation and even if the Lender seeks to put the terms of the settlement in issue, I cannot see how the FOS could (within their remit) consider it when making an adjudication.

For your part, you would, I imagine, maintain that in any event the settlement and the PPI are 2 completely separate issues and that the settlement was reached either expressly or impliedly on the basis that it was a settlement of the Lender's lawful claim against you; rather than a settlement of the Lender's claim to the extent that it unlawfully included mis-sold PPI and interest thereon.

If, as I suggest, the FOS were ultimately to find in your favour and to an extent that was much greater than a Court would had they been called on to decide... it would be a matter for the Lender whether they sought to challenge the FOS' decision.

Insofar as I am aware the FOS ajudication is binding as a matter of regulatory authority, rather than law. In other words... it ain't law but Lenders have to abide by the decisions, if they want to stay in the lending business.

Hello,

...so there was obviously a considerable advantage to you in the settlement.



I do think it is extremely important to mention the interest they charge, the interest is sheer profit for their enrichment

If you say the loan was for £4,000 and the ppi was £2,000, £6,000 then interest is added at their contractual rate of ??????? and over a term of ???????and this interest adds a tidy little profit to the lender.

For simplicity sake imagine the interest added to the loan amount was £1,800 and the interest to the ppi was £900. The total payable would then be £8,700, on a car worth £4,000. I would also be interested on any commission paid by the insurance company paid to the lender as an incentive to use their insurance.

Ok so they have overstretched the lender, due to their greed. The lender is having difficulty in making payments every month. MMMM they take the car back. So the balance left on the loan is £3,000, they write the debt of for tax purposes and sell it to a DCA for approximately 10% of the value £300.

The DCA offer a once in a lifetime offer that cannot be missed and you give them £1,500 as full and final settlement. So they make £1,200 sheer profit for a few threatening letters

So the lender is sitting pretty, he has made money of the sale and probably got the car back to sell again. They made money from the commission, car payments, ppi payments, interest paid. Got the tax write off.

The Dca makes money as well, buying debts for a pittance after threatening all kinds of action. And I would add whether or not they had any legal entitlement to or not. They rely on the customers ignorance as to consumer legislation.

The borrower is very much out of pocket, has no car and a default on their credit file, which makes it extremely difficult to obtain any further credit for 6yrs.

Where is the justice in that???????? Who is the victum here?????

As you have stated the courts will look at the case, and also at the bigger picture, if the case is well presented with your legal arguements.

I agree that if the loan was taken within the fos timelimits, use the fos, but for some caggers court is the only opinion, so they need to take their time, do their homework and attack from all angles

Can you expand on the limitation act ticking away for us please

My example was only intended to illustrate the point, I was making in the paragraph that preceeded it. The only reason I did not include figures for interest as separate elements was to keep the maths as simple as possible.

Perhaps my point would have been clearer, if I had said

Let's say the original loan (including interest over its lifetime) was £4,000 and the PPI (including interest over its lifetime) was £2,000.

I agree with you, that in the real world, the injustice of mis-sold PPI is exacerbated by the interest charged (and lost) on the premiums.

However, I don't think this detracts from the tenor of my earlier post.

If parties contract on a lawful basis, the Courts will, first and foremost look to provide business efficacy to their agreement.

...and it is worth bearing in mind that the overall transaction here is capable of being considered as 2 (or more separate) contracts:

1. The contract for the loan on the Car
2. The contract(s) for the insurances

[The spectre of collateral contracts is also raised by the transaction as a whole, but I won't consider that for now.]

This is important because it goes to the root of the problem potentially created by the settlement, which is, "Did the settlement compromise any potential PPI claim?"... and because it permits the Court to (if it considers it just to do so) to look at the course of dealing between the parties.

I also agree with you, that Lender's often knowingly overstretch a Borrower's abilty to pay and that their usual response, benefits both them and their DCA's to the Borrowers detriment. I also completely understand and share your indignation about it.

However, the Courts concern themselves only with matters of fact and law.

...and here the fact is that a settlement was reached; and objectively that settlement was of advantage to the Borrower because it (at least) released him from his (otherwise continuing) obligations under the original loan agreement and which, by law, he would have become liable for as a result of his original breach. per

In 2004 the car was taken from our doorstep without even a knock because we had fallen behind in the crippling payments.

The Limitation issue

Me and my partner bought a car through Yes Car Credit (YCC) - or Direct Auto Finance - in 2003.

My concern is that the primary 6 year Limitation period appears to be due to expire on a date in 2009 (but what I do not know the exact date or if it has in fact already expired).

It is, I would suggest, much harder to sustain a s.32 argument in relation to a PPI claim, than it is in relation to a bank charges claim. Section .32 arguments are commonly put to and rejected by the Courts... and whilst I wouldn't discount the possibility of one being sustained in this case, why risk it?

Accordingly, whilst pursuing Court proceedings may not be the best overall option, smel, may need to consider whether to issue "protective" proceedings sooner rather than later and run the fos complaint in parallel to those proceedings... indeed without getting too far ahead of ourselves... if my analysis of the potential benefit of using the FOS is correct, smel may be advised to issue the proceedings and the FOS complaint, await the Defence in the proceedings, enter a Reply and then shortly thereafter apply to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the FOS complaint!

...but for some caggers court is the only opinion, so they need to take their time, do their homework and attack from all angles:grin:

This, imho, is excellent advice.