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.
Thanks to this excellent site, I've decided to have a go at reclaiming some of the 'insurance' payments which have been conned out of me and my partner over the last few years.
I've already sent of complaint letters to First National, MBNA and RBS, but after reading the threads in more detail, think I might have been better sending SARs rather than just the complaint?
Anyway, the First National (now GE Money) PPI relates to a loan I took out in April 2003 and paid off in June 06. I was told that I couldn't have the loan unless I took out the PPI even though I had a job that paid 6 month full pay and 6 months half pay in the case of illness, which I explained but they still made me take it. There reply basically says that this was always optional and I could have refused it at any point (the agreement already had it printed on !!). The bogoff letter also tells me that their internal complaints procedure is now exhausted - but I can't go to fos because of the historical nature of the complaint. Apparently, if I want to take this further I need to contact the Financial & Leasing association ?
MBNA/RBS are my partners - she had cancer and took out PPI on these cards thinking she'd be covered if there was any recurrence. Obviously, we now know that pre-existing conditions aren't covered, but we didn't then. Their bogoff letter says, hey the cancer wouldn't have been covered but anything else would have been, so what's your problem !! They've also said that this is their final response and FOS won't be interested because it's outside their time limits. tThese policies began in 2001 & 2002 but weren't cancelled until 2006.
So, I'm not sure what to do next. Should I go straight to FOS, or should I send a SAR. Is there any mileage in complaining again - even if all have said this is their final position?
Apologies for the length of this post - but I'm trying to give you the best info I can, as I'd appreciate any advice. Like lots of otehrs on here, our lives have been a misery for the past few years due to the various financial institutions pretty much forcing us into an ever increasing spiral of debt. Lloyds TSB took £215 in bank charges from us this month and an additional £175 unauthorised payment for their credit card - consequently we started the month with absolutely nothing in the bank for the second month running.
So anything we can do to get something back from these people would be really sweet !!
Thanks to this excellent site, I've decided to have a go at reclaiming some of the 'insurance' payments which have been conned out of me and my partner over the last few years. Good for you
I've already sent of complaint letters to First National, MBNA and RBS, but after reading the threads in more detail, think I might have been better sending SARs rather than just the complaint? Yes, a SAR is a great starting point to obtain all the relevant documention and any transcripts of sales coversations
Anyway, the First National (now GE Money) PPI relates to a loan I took out in April 2003 and paid off in June 06. I was told that I couldn't have the loan unless I took out the PPI even though I had a job that paid 6 month full pay and 6 months half pay in the case of illness, which I explained but they still made me take it. There reply basically says that this was always optional and I could have refused it at any point (the agreement already had it printed on !!). The bogoff letter also tells me that their internal complaints procedure is now exhausted - but I can't go to fos because of the historical nature of the complaint. Apparently, if I want to take this further I need to contact the Financial & Leasing association ? Or just escalate your complaint through the courts ...
MBNA/RBS are my partners - she had cancer and took out PPI on these cards thinking she'd be covered if there was any recurrence. Obviously, we now know that pre-existing conditions aren't covered, but we didn't then. Their bogoff letter says, hey the cancer wouldn't have been covered but anything else would have been, so what's your problem !! They've also said that this is their final response and FOS won't be interested because it's outside their time limits. tThese policies began in 2001 & 2002 but weren't cancelled until 2006. Very shoddy business practice that brings shame on the financial services industry!!! If they have taken advantage of your lack of knowledge, not offered sufficient info for you to make an informed choice as to the suitability of the product and also witheld information, then you have a clear case for mis-selling ... which the courts may be able to settle
So, I'm not sure what to do next. Should I go straight to FOS, or should I send a S.A.R - (Subject access request). Is there any mileage in complaining again - even if all have said this is their final position? Send those SARs
Apologies for the length of this post - but I'm trying to give you the best info I can, as I'd appreciate any advice. Like lots of otehrs on here, our lives have been a misery for the past few years due to the various financial institutions pretty much forcing us into an ever increasing spiral of debt. Lloyds TSB took £215 in bank charges from us this month and an additional £175 unauthorised payment for their credit card - consequently we started the month with absolutely nothing in the bank for the second month running. Well, let us in the PPI forum help put a stop to that then ... and assist you in getting you some of your money back
So anything we can do to get something back from these people would be really sweet !!
Keep up the good work all.
Popeye
Good luck Popeye
'Fortune favours the brave.'
Any advice given is purely on the basis of my own views and opinions and offered in good faith.
Thanks for the very prompt reply. I'll get the SARs off today and when I've got all of my information, I'll start preparing my court claims.
I know from the stuff on the bank charges forums that there is a very specific order for the letters etc to be sent to prove that you've done everything you can to try and resolve things before taking court action. Is it the same with PPIs - or do I just get all my information together and then go for it?
The order of letters together with the timescales is the same for PPI claims. You will need to provide the lender every opportunity to refute your claim for mis-selling and provide evidence to show that they have done their job properly (pfffft ) and followed FSA guidelines. The fos and the courts will also expec you to demonstrate that you are a reasonable person.
Also this links ... and this too PPI which is from the Consumer Wiki on this site and will help you pinpoint how the PPI was mis-sold and how you formulate your case.
This link is from the In the Media section on the front page of this site and is great for keeping you up-to-date with who has been fined for mis-selling, etc: PPI in the media
If you need help with writing any letters or understanding any apsect of legislation, please just shout
'Fortune favours the brave.'
Any advice given is purely on the basis of my own views and opinions and offered in good faith.
Following on from some of the other threads on here, I sent of the CCA requests off to everyone I've currently got 'agreements' with and HFC have replied this morning. I thought it was a bit odd that the covering letter had a Marbles logo on it as I've never had anything to do with them. As it turns out, the letter has all my details on, and they've sent me some of my statements - but the credit card agreement they've sent me belongs to someone else and has all their details on it, including 'memorable password' details etc etc.
Presumably I need to write back to them pointing out their error and giving them chance to come up with my agreement, but I don't know if I should contact the person on the form and let them know that HFC/Marbles have given their data to me and it would be wise to change passwords etc.
You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.
If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.
If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales
i'd report them to the Information Commissioners Office
Yes, most certainly report them wthout delay. This is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act/security. I doubt very much if any of those documents should have your or anyones password on it.
By all means contact the person concerned and tell them you are reporting the incident to the Information Commissioner.
HALIFAX: 13/01/07 Sent S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter (marked as rec'd 16/01)
Paid in full in March 07
Probably won't get chance to do it today (celebrating Preston North Ends victory over local rivals Blackpool !!) - but I'll do it tomorrow afternoon.
I thought there must be some official body who deals with these type of things but had no idea who. I've got the address details etc now, so stern letter to the information commissioner and HFC coming up.
Presumably I need to write back to them pointing out their error and giving them chance to come up with my agreement, but I don't know if I should contact the person on the form and let them know that HFC/Marbles have given their data to me and it would be wise to change passwords etc.
I would suggest yes send a nice letter letting them know what happened and even enclose the information you have been provided with so that it is now safely back to their own hands.
You may wish to suggest in your letter that they could also complain about this breach of the Data Protection Act to the Information Commissioners Office.
After all two complaints with the ICO is better than one
aa
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.
Not posted for a while as been waiting for SARs, replying to fob off letters etc - but I'm almost ready to take both MBNA & GE Money to court and would appreciate a bit of advise before filing my claims.
Latest from GE Money dated 12/02/2009:
Blah blah blah...''As the sale of the policy took place prior to the introduction of the Insurance Conduct Of Business, it was done so on a non-advised basis. In this respect it is my belief you were provided with the relevant documentation to make an informed decision and chose to proceed with the optional cover on an entirely voluntary basis''
My understadning is that they still had some sort of duty of care to make sure that this was in fact suitable for me (it wasn't given the work benefits, private cover I had at the time). Also, there is nothing in the stuff I recieved back from the SAR to suggest I was ever given any documenation other than the loan agreement...(I was also told I wouldn't get the loan if I didn't have the cover and interestingly, that wasn't in the SAR either !)
But the otehr interesting bit is:
'However, under mormal circumstances, upon settlement of an account you would have been sent a final letter,confirming the account was closed. This letter would have explained that the payment protection policy was also paid in full but that you would continue to receive the benefit of the cover provided. In this instance, if you were to make a claim successful claim, any refunds would now be paid to you directly.
This letter also includes cancellation rights and advises you may choose to cancel the policy and be due a proportionate rebat, if you have not made any claims against the policy previously. We have no record of you making a claim and as a gesture of goodwill I am prepared to accept your preference at the time of settling the account in June 2006 would have also included the receipt of the relevant rebate. This is based on the fact that you are now claiming the policy was mis-sold.
In this respect, I would like to offer the proportionate rebate you would have been due had you chosen to exercise your cancellation rights at the time. This as your account was open for a period of 25 months is equivalent to 20% of the intial premium, being £205.00
A couple of things I want to be clear on here:
a) should I make a bid deal of the fact that no letter was ever sent (not in SAR either) in order to add weight to the argument that all this has been badly handled
b) This was a 5 year loan, paid off after 25 months so even offering 20% of the initial premium seems wrong. Does anyone know how they calculate this and is this another mistake I can use in my court docs?
Apologies for the length of this. I know from reading other threads that it's important to get your get your court bundles in good order so I'm trying to make sure I'm on top of everything.
Not posted for a while as been waiting for SARs, replying to fob off letters etc - but I'm almost ready to take both MBNA & GE Money to court and would appreciate a bit of advise before filing my claims.
Latest from GE Money dated 12/02/2009:
Blah blah blah...''As the sale of the policy took place prior to the introduction of the Insurance Conduct Of Business, it was done so on a non-advised basis YES NON ADVISED ACCEPT THE PPI ELEMENT OF THE LOAN OR NO LOAN. In this respect it is my belief you were provided with the relevant documentation to make an informed decision and chose to proceed with the optional cover on an entirely voluntary basis''
My understadning is that they still had some sort of duty of care to make sure that this was in fact suitable for me (You should have received evidence of a wants and needs questionnaire supplied under your SAR Request if that was not in the SAR bundle then you can write and insist on it as it should be under law a requirement that you were sold a product suitable to your needs!!!! (it wasn't given the work benefits, private cover I had at the time). Also, there is nothing in the stuff I recieved back from the Subject access request to suggest I was ever given any documenation other than the loan agreement...(I was also told I wouldn't get the loan if I didn't have the cover and interestingly, that wasn't in the Subject access request either !)
So the sellers, brokers and lenders end up with heaps of cash and you have a real fight to get your own money back/
But the otehr interesting bit is:
'However, under mormal circumstances, upon settlement of an account you would have been sent a final letter,confirming the account was closed. This letter would have explained that the payment protection policy was also paid in full but that you would continue to receive the benefit of the cover provided. In this instance, if you were to make a claim successful claim, any refunds would now be paid to you directly.
This letter also includes cancellation rights and advises you may choose to cancel the policy and be due a proportionate rebat, if you have not made any claims against the policy previously. We have no record of you making a claim and as a gesture of goodwill I am prepared to accept your preference at the time of settling the account in June 2006 would have also included the receipt of the relevant rebate. This is based on the fact that you are now claiming the policy was mis-sold.
In this respect, I would like to offer the proportionate rebate you would have been due had you chosen to exercise your cancellation rights at the time. This as your account was open for a period of 25 months is equivalent to 20% of the intial premium, being £205.00
A couple of things I want to be clear on here:
a) should I make a bid deal of the fact that no letter was ever sent (not in Subject Access Request either) in order to add weight to the argument that all this has been badly handled
b) This was a 5 year loan, paid off after 25 months so even offering 20% of the initial premium seems wrong. Does anyone know how they calculate this and is this another mistake I can use in my court docs?
Apologies for the length of this. I know from reading other threads that it's important to get your get your court bundles in good order so I'm trying to make sure I'm on top of everything.
Many Thanks
Popeye
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.
Apologies in advance for the length of the post but I could do with some advice and I think some of this will be very relevant to other PPI claimants.
Finally ended up in court with the allocation hearing for this last week - can't say too much because I know that the defendants solicitors watch the site. But several issues cropped up that may affect others using the 'POC' template.
First issue was that the judge was giving serious consideration to allocating the case to the multi-track on the basis of the point in the POC which states:
'On the basis of this, and further contentions outlined below, the Claimant believes that the advice given by the seller was in fact fraudulent, and therefore a breach of common law, in that the representation of the product's suitability was either made (1) knowingly, or (2) without belief in it's truth, or (3) recklessly, careless wether it be true or false. I refer the court to the judgement given by Lord Herschell (Derry v Peak(1989) 14 App Cas 337)
Judge felt that any reference to 'fraud' may automatically mean an allocation to multi-track, and spent 10 minutes or so consulting his various books on the matter ! Finally decided that as this would be so 'draconian' to me, I would be allowed to redraft my POC and remove this reference (which is where I might need some help ...)
Other issue which was mentioned was the recent Southern Pacific v Walker judgement. I know this is going to be appealed again, but until things change should we be removing this references to section 9 (4) in PPI claims?
My final problem on this is that the defendant is continuing to claim that they are actually not responsible for the PPI issue at all (a load of semantics to do with company name changes but I could do with sorting them out for this revised POC)
And... there is likely to be a 'secret comission' isue which I didn't detail in the original POC but think I may do in the revision.
I do have a solicitor helping me with the paperwork etc - but he's our usual solicitor and a conveyancing specialist !! So, we are hoping someone can point us in the right direction.
PPI Advice Please
and RBS
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Popeye
) and followed FSA guidelines. The 
