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.
I'm just trying to find out whether I have been mis-sold the PPI on a couple of cards.
At the time I was sold it, I was a director of an IT contract company. The only "employees" were the 2 directors (myself and my business partner), and we worked as contractors, so were contracted for IT work by other companies. This is where I'm a bit confused - I was employed, but only technically and only by my own company. The card companies in question were told on applications either that I was a Director, or IT contracter. I would assume both of these would be classed as a self-employed type job, but I'd really appreciate someone who knows giving their opinion please
I also don't know if it is relevant, but when I had to leave my contracted job, I phoned to activate the PPI and was told I couldn't due to my employment (or should that be self-employment??) status. I have since cancelled both PPI's and it has been a year or two since then.
I am not an expert in law, finance or any related field, I just read a lot. Any advice is based solely on what I've read so please don't take it as gospel without checking it out yourself.
I prefer not to give advice by PM. If you want me to look at something, send me a link to your thread, and if I can help I'll reply on there.
I'm just trying to find out whether I have been mis-sold the PPI on a couple of cards.
At the time I was sold it, I was a director of an IT contract company. The only "employees" were the 2 directors (myself and my business partner), and we worked as contractors, so were contracted for IT work by other companies. This is where I'm a bit confused - I was employed, but only technically and only by my own company. The card companies in question were told on applications either that I was a Director, or IT contracter. I would assume both of these would be classed as a self-employed type job, but I'd really appreciate someone who knows giving their opinion please (I am not able to offer advice on the employment aspect in your case but it would seem to me that self employed would fit the bill)
I also don't know if it is relevant, but when I had to leave my contracted job, I phoned to activate the PPI and was told I couldn't due to my employment (or should that be self-employment??) status. I have since cancelled both PPI's and it has been a year or two since then.
Any information gratefully recieved!
If there was a clause in the terms and conditions or policy document that prevented you making a valid claim and this was not pointed out at the point of sale then clearly you would IMO have a case for mis-selling.
To start the ball rolling if you do not have all the original paperwork you can submit a Subject access request with a Statutory fee £10.00 (postal order is good as no delay unlike the 5 working days for a cheque to clear)
You can ask for every bit of data with regard to yourself and your CC agreements. There is a PPI template in the stickies at the top of the forum.
Once you have fired off the SAR they have 40 days to comly fully with your request. When you get all the documentation. You can go over it to check out every little detail and make a considered decision whether or not to claim mis-sold PPI.
do not forget to ask for data in all formats. Paper, electronic, CD, Tape, microfische and be totally specific with your request. I faffed about and it has taken me 6 months although I do have a letter of apology from my branch manager about the delay.
Stick to the timetable:
SAR 40 days then ICO or Court ot both
PPI reclaim 8 weeks then fos or Court
and tell the world FSA, OFT, Trading Standards, British Bankers Association.
This was my approach remember this is new territory.
Mr xxxxxxx
See distribution.
xxxxxxxx 2008
Dear Sir,
Submission of a Very Serious Formal Complaint against the Royal Bank of Scotland
I wish to lodge a very serious formal complaint against the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) for their failure to fully comply with a Data Subject access request (S.A.R - (Subject access request)) under the provisions of Section 7 Sub section (1) ( c ) (i) and (ii) of the Data Protection Act 1998 which is a statute within the Law of the British Isles.
On the 7 January 2008 I submitted a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to the Royal Bank of Scotland asking for information on five loan accounts which I have held, two with Direct Line Financial Services (DLFS) and three with RBS. Four of these loans were refinanced to subsequent loans up to the current loan which is still active.
To date, I have received statements on the three RBS loan accounts, a statement on my current account and since submitting a request for Consumer Credit Agreements under the provision of Section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I have now received the documentation on the existing loan.
Despite several further requests for the information as required by my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), none has been forthcoming.
Letters have been sent on:
24 January 2008
16 February 2008
12 March 2008
28 March 2008
2 April 2008
12 April 2008
12 April 2008 Request for CCA under provision of Consumer Credit Act 1974
19 April 2008
I have still not received Consumer Credit Agreements with associated paperwork on four of the loans. Because of the inordinate delays, the information requested on the first loan which was refinanced in March 2002 would be of no use as any claim against that loan would now be statute barred within the Scottish Courts.
I have not received data in the name of recordings of telephone conversations or transcripts of those conversations between the RBS and myself.
I have not received copies of emails or letters which I know exist.
I have also not received any properly certified documentation by Data Controllers within the RBS stating the information that I have requested has been disposed of, destroyed or erased.
The Royal Bank of Scotland is a member of the British Bankers Association (BBA), is licensed by the Financial Services Authority and should I believe, operate within the Law of the Land and therefore respond within the statutory timescales within Legal Acts at Law, namely the Data Protection Act 1998.
I have, when asked, provided information to the RBS, but it seems to me now, that they will try and delay supplying the data requested by using whatever delaying tactics they see fit. On one occasion referring me back to DLFS for the information I had requested. The fact that the DLFS had been legally transferred back to the RBS on 1 March 2006 (the transfer included all DLFS loans) was obviously overlooked by the Data Protection staff within the RBS.
This is indeed an extremely sorry state of affairs and it beggars belief that RBS staff would not be aware this Legal transfer had taken place.
My understanding is that the RBS had 40 days to fully supply all the information requested in my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), this has most certainly not happened.
I would therefore like to request that each addressee takes the appropriate measures to instruct or at least direct the RBS to supply this information to me as a matter of urgency.
I have a complaint lodged with the Information Commissioners Office Case Reference xxxxxx
I would now urge the Commissioner to consider an Enforcement notice against the RBS under Section 40 of the Data Protection Act.
I would also request that the Financial Services Authority, the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Office of Fair Trading and the British Bankers Association add this extremely serious complaint to their files on the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Yours sincerely
A xxxxxxxxxxx
Distribution:
The Financial Services Authority, 25 The North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5HS.
The Financial Ombudsman Service, South Quay Plaza, 183 Marsh Wall, London,
E14 9SR.
The Commissioner, Information Commissioners Office, Wyckuffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
The Information Commissioners Office, Casework and Advice Division, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
The Office of Fair Trading, OFT Enquiries, Fleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury Square, London, EC4Y 8JX.
Chief Executive, British Bankers Association, Pinners Hall, 105-108 Old Broad Street, London, EC2N 1EX
Lexis200, you may need to take care saying you were Self-Employed if a Director of a Company.
I think that automatically classes you as Employed.
It's a bit of a fudge, but a Company is a Legal Entity in its own right.
So, when you are a Director, you are an Employee of that Company, and also an Employer too in your role as a Director.
You will also pay different National Insurance to the Self-Employed. If an Employee, you will Pay Class 1 National Insurance.
Self-Employed normally means a Sole Trader or a Partnership. They pay Class 2 National Insurance, plus they may have to Pay Class 4 too if they are doing exceptionally well (count me out there then)!
A Director therefore usually has to Pay Class 1, so it usually rules you out as being able to say you are Self-Employed.
It gets a bit confusing, but once a Company comes into it, Directors are Employees, even if you are just a two person Company...technically, it's then two person plus the Company.
Just advice, not trying to put you off re-claiming PPI, but do take care they don't rat up your plans by saying what National Insurance did you Pay!
Wow alanalana - I hope I never get you upset:grin: Thanks very much for giving all the timescales and who to complain to - that saves soooo much searching on here.
B_R_W - again, thanks for your advice, I guess now I'll be scuttling off to find my NI payments and see where I stand as I certainly don't want to be starting this if I'm going to be on a hiding to nothing.
Would you say the same is true if I'd put down 'contractor' on the application? I only ask as I did put down one or the other on forms, and I can't be sure which I would have said.
If you still think this would be classed as employed I think I'll leave it, but otherwise I might SAR them to find out what I put (or would it be CCA if I just want to see what I wrote on the form first?)
Again, thanks everyone for your advice!
Time flies like an arrow... Fruit flies like a banana.
Would you say the same is true if I'd put down 'contractor' on the application? I only ask as I did put down one or the other on forms, and I can't be sure which I would have said.
The main problem is they may work out if you were Employed v Self-Employed, but yet again...they may not!
If you still think this would be classed as employed I think I'll leave it, but otherwise I might S.A.R - (Subject access request) them to find out what I put (or would it be CCA if I just want to see what I wrote on the form first?)
I regret I think it does mean you were Employed, but I am on your side not theirs. Others may shed some light on this, but I'm 99.9% sure that a Director of Company is classed as Employed not Self-Employed, at least from a Tax and Inland Revenue point of view.
I accept that many go from being a Self-Employed Contractor to starting their own Company for various reasons, and so feel they are still doing the same Job so are Self-Employed, but the Technical issue remains...once you form a Company and become a Director, you are Employed by that Company, so you are no longer Self-Employed.
The fact that you do the same work, drive the same Van, use the same Tools etc, is not taken into account. You are now a Company Employee, albeit it's your own Company.
Hope this helps...but fear it's not much use on the PPI front.
I think 'nuts' is the expression I want here (or words to that effect).
I was paying a fortune to two companies for PPI, both of whom I spoke to over the phone when I took out the cards as I wanted to check if I was eligible due to the contracting. I know when I spoke to them I explained the situation and they said it applied, but when I actually needed to claim it was suddenly not within the scope of the terms. My problem is I have no proof of this so would be relying on what I wrote on the forms (which I can't remember for the life of me, and as you've pointed out, would probably both be seen as employed anyway).
I guess I'll just have to take this one on the chin
Thanks for your advice anyway, it's much appreciated.
Time flies like an arrow... Fruit flies like a banana.
Having said all that (and not that I'm like a dog with a bone or anything) - Could this be flipped to go on their refusal to pay?
What I mean is, if the form showed I was a director/contractor (which it will), and this was accepted by them (which I'm assuming would be shown by them taking the money), and my employment details had not changed in the meantime, would them refusing to pay be anything to go on? Surely they've accepted my employment status so can't then tell me it doesn't qualify on those grounds?
It's just a thought that's suddenly popped into my head which may well be complete rubbish, so do feel free to pick any holes you can in it! I'm just furious that they can tell me it's fine on one hand and charge me for years, then when I need to use it tell me I'm not covered.
And I promise I'll leave you alone if you still say no:grin::grin:
Thanks again
Time flies like an arrow... Fruit flies like a banana.
bum to that you don,t give in just because they say it is right.of course they are going to tell you they are correct ,they aren,t just gonna roll over and say sorry old chap here,s your money we tricked off you .the staff that sell these policies are driven by sales ,they couldn,t care less if it is suitable for you or not. go fishing ask the right questions in customer care and look into every way ,but don,t give in
bum to that you don,t give in just because they say it is right.of course they are going to tell you they are correct ,they aren,t just gonna roll over and say sorry old chap here,s your money we tricked off you .the staff that sell these policies are driven by sales ,they couldn,t care less if it is suitable for you or not. go fishing ask the right questions in customer care and look into every way ,but don,t give in
You just have to love this post by lilal:grin:
Now that's a fighting spirit
Wow, I'm finding I'm like that bloke on the Fast Show who sways with whatever argument is put to him last
I suppose there's no harm in doing an SAR to them - it's not like they're going to turn around and beat me about the head for asking for info. I was just going to let it go as I do think BRW is right in what he says, but reading lilal's post has made me really cross again about it!
Like I said, I do think (sadly) that BRW is probably correct and I'm on a hiding to nothing, but for the sake of £20 I can find out for certain.
ps - too right aa - thanks for making me chuckle lilal
Time flies like an arrow... Fruit flies like a banana.
sorry BRW,I could have been clearer there - I wasn't typing it in that sense at all - it was two statements but in one sentence. I've tried to explain it a little better, but it'll probably be as clear as mud now
Like I said, I do think (sadly) that BRW is probably correct (as in them classing my being a director/contractor as employed).
and I'm on a hiding to nothing (as they will quite probably pick up on that)
I didn't mean that I thought you were telling me I shouldn't bother trying, I was just thinking that it might not be worth the trouble as I can see your points and I thought they obviously would too.
That said, I am going to S.A.R - (Subject access request) anyway. As I said in my last post, it can't do any harm (I hope). I'm just crossing fingers they're not going to be as eagle eyed as everyone on here seems to be
Time flies like an arrow... Fruit flies like a banana.
The key is to line up your plans via discussion here, and then grab that banker by the throat and shake out what he/she/it owes you!
The mis-selling of PPI can be on many grounds, Self-Employment is only one of them. I would still mention that, but just make sure you mention all the other points too.
Chances are, they'll be so demoralised by the 9 other winning points, the Self-Employment bit may just wash over them as they Sign your Refund Cheque!
Just give it your best shot but, before shooting, await that S.A.R - (Subject access request)! You just never know what it will reveal. It could contain all sorts of useful snippets of tasty information that you can use against them to get back those PPI Payments!
Self employed/Company director sold PPI
on a couple of cards.
Reply With Quote
(I am not able to offer advice on the employment aspect in your case but it would seem to me that self employed would fit the bill)
.of course they are going to tell you they are correct ,they aren,t just gonna roll over and say sorry old chap here,s your money we tricked off you 
.the staff that sell these policies are driven by sales ,they couldn,t care less if it is suitable for you or not. go fishing ask the right questions in customer care and look into every way 
.of course they are going to tell you they are correct ,they aren,t just gonna roll over and say sorry old chap here,s your money we tricked off you 
.the staff that sell these policies are driven by sales ,they couldn,t care less if it is suitable for you or not. go fishing ask the right questions in customer care and look into every way 