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.
They may try to say that you are out of time but I think you should still claim the money back as they have acted dishonestly and should be held to account.
I'm not sure where the fos stand on claims going this far back but you always have the court!
With regards to legislation, well the lender is still bound within the FSA Markets and Services Act 2000 and the regulations therein, together with a couple of other things that regulate selling of financial products and ensure fair treatment of cusomers.
Thanks PB, From what I know the fos have looked into older cases, starting from the time when you became aware of mis selling, so I will try my luck.
The larger amounts to claim are in the norman time ,as I have charges to reclaim as well so I shouldn't come away with nothing!:grin:
Your input as always gratefully received.
PN x
Received a no way letter which did not address the issues I brought up.Sent another letter pointing this out, but have been rejected again and the word optional is again ignored. I have received nothing in my SAR to show how this was requested and the credit agreement does not have the word optional on it next to the PPI amount.
This was a single premium policy and no mention was made that this would attract interest or what would happen if I repaid this early.
Dont know how the fos will see this but I will try this first.
Me again ,regarding PPI on credit card. No mention of PPI on credit agreement I signed but still rejected by them by sending a screen shot of application review with a phrase accident and sickness, no print out of selection process or whether it was tick or untick so have asked for this .
Funnily enough according to this screen application review I earnt £16000 a year and £10340 a month , their error or mine ?either way should have been looked into surely with that a month why have a credit card??!!
I'm helping a friend with a similar claim (Egg card) and have similar problems - i.e. standard letter in response totally ignoring the specifics of our letter, then a printscreen with a phrase about accident and sickness, and also, strangely, some totally wrong information about income and monthly outgoings..... what is going in with this so-called evidence that they are producing?
I was thinking about sending a PPI complaint about my own Egg Card (rather than my friend's) to see what they came back with. Because I have certainly never had PPI on my own card. If they came back with a printscreen to "prove" I asked for PPI then my conspiracy theory would be proved correct!!!
Well there excuses today are:
a) they dont query the information is if you fit the main criteria
b) You dont sign for PPI just get T&Cs
c) screen shot of yes or no for PPI but no date to show if this is the current screen or 2000 screen.
Does anyone know if this part of the applination has changed?
They claim the income and expenditure data is not something they would have looked at unless you are going to fail the credit check (I paraphrase). Therefore if it's wrong it's because you entered it wrongly.
About their main argument on Egg Card CRP. To quote from their 1st standard letter:
"...you purchased your insurance through the Egg website... We do not provide an advisory service as part of our on-line sales process. However, prior to submitting your on-line application, you were asked to read the terms and conditions governing this policy and you were required to specifically confirm that you agreed to them. In addition, a paper copy of those terms and conditions were sent to your account address prior to the purchase of the policy being completed."
They also state in the second letter that "Accident, sickness, unemployment and life was entered on to the real time application screen shot because the 'yes' option box was ticked during your application. This was not pre-selected".
So my questions are:
1. Were they allowed to sell an insurance policy without an "advisory service" or does this breach any rules about selling insurance policies in a responsible and regulated way?
2. Assuming they are telling the truth about it not being pre-selected but actually ticked by my friend, what was displayed on the screen at this point in time? Was it clear that it was actually an insurance policy costing X per pound of outstanding monthly balance?
3. At the point at which terms and conditions had to be confirmed, was there an option to say "hang on a minute, I didn't realise that was an optional insurance policy I was signing up for, I would like to remove it please"?
4. So, basically, was the whole process actually very fair and reasonable, and more particularly, does this breach any rules if it wasn't? Is it really ok to trick somebody into buying an optional insurance policy but only show them the terms and conditions afterwards?
I mean, am I missing something? Surely you can't just counter a mis-selling claim by saying "we do not provide and advisory service" and "you agreed to them"???
In addition, I would like to mention another aspect of our PPI claim. After Egg decided to default the account, they agreed a dmp but continued to charge a monthly PPI premium of an amount greater than the dmp payment, causing the debt to keep growing. (and they stopped sending the statements so we didn't know this).
In response to this part of the complaint they claim that the terms and conditions we were sent state "...that if no payments are made for CRP for two cycles then the cover will cease to be charged. That is what has happened"
Now, apart from the fact that the above sentence doesn't make any sense, this wording is stated NOWHERE in the terms and conditions recently sent to us as part of the request for Data Protection Act information.
So either they are lying or they have just sent us a more recent version of the T&Cs than were in force at the time. Which obviously makes it rather hard to prove the policy was mis-sold.
For example, the new T&Cs say unemployment cover was only available if you had been in work for at least six months. My friend had been in work for 11 months when the policy started. What if they old T&Cs that she was apparently sent said you had to be in work for 12 months? They have a copy of these terms. We don't.
Is it just coincidence that we both entered the data wrong?
Have given up arguing with them and sent it to the fos.
I believe that the FOS have made up their own minds
I have no legal training and the advice I offer is a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner. ------------------------------------------------
Bank charge successes:
Halifax - Full settlement incl interest.
HSBC - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 75% of claim.
RBS - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 70% of claim.
2 ongoing claims for bank charges with HSBC with more to come. (Supreme Court ruling could have upset these claims) They did
PPI Successes
PPI 4 settlements on 9 loans. FOS involvement on 7 added on the 8 % Statutory interest another 30% to both.
2 claims settled in full with LV without FOS involvement.
2 claims settled in full with HSBC without FOS involvement
PPI Claims ongoing with:
Cap one Now with the FOS
Barclays. Paid up today 24/04/10 cheque received for over £4,500 and in the bank.
LTSB still have to decide on this as their SAR production was abysmal. Papers data mixed up documents missing etc
Please do not PM me for advice as it may be sometime before I can respond.
Keep at them. Do not give way and do not accept all they tell you, they will delay and stall for as long as they can to prevent repaying you your mis-sold PPI.
Should I be starting my own thread for this? If we are both starting two claims then this one might get a bit confusing if I post my stuff on here as well?
Sorry, I'm new to this site (but old to taking on evil companies!)
Egg PPI loan and credit card ***WON***
from Egg
Reply With Quote
, their error or mine ?either way should have been looked into surely with that a month why have a credit card??!!
