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.
Sent PPI claim letter 8 days ago claiming back ppi on basis on being mis-sold it owing to them having being fined for not acting in interests of customer. Three days later an acknowledgement, yesterday a letter with offer of full refund plus stat interest, £1700. RESULT!
I also was missold PPI by egge and was really angry when |I disocvered it.
Ten years of paying premiums.
I tried to claim for periods in the past when I was out after an acident, but failed because I had never asked for a doctors sick note. Didn't need it eI owned he company then.
I did complain about being miossod and they mad no comment on this, but I said I would try to back claim as the best option for all of us. Now that this is definitely not going to happen, do you thik I have spoiled my chances of recovering the premiums.
Also, is it not the case that the contract I signed was not the one I thought I was signing and hence , is it not an unlawful contract?
This is sheer speculation, I have no experince of this.
There need to be specific grounds for alleging misselling of PPI, e.g. if you were self-employed and excluded from claiming, or there is no evidence you ever electronically ticked the box confirming intention to purchase.
However if this reclaim ends up in court, the judge is certain to ask -- if you never wanted to purchase PPI why did you not protest or cancel over ten long years? If you never wanted PPI why did you try to claim when you were off sick? If the fine print of PPI terms specified the requirement of doctor's chit, and the terms were spelt out to the customer from the beginning, then hard to see how the agreed terms can be set aside.
Only you know all the details. The balance seems to be swinging towards the consumer, so that in cases of doubt the regulators seem to be favouring the consumer more than the PPI pressure salesperson. It's up to you to assess the odds of success in court. The weaker your case, the more fiercely will Egg defend, and vice versa.
Well in my case, I distinctly remember saying no to PPI because I was self employed (one man ltd co). I have a policy of no buying insurance in any case.
When I discovered it I immediately expressed my shock.
The fact that i was seriously ill and out for six months but made no attempt to claim, should be a strong indicator that I am telling the truth.
I made it clear that I had been mis sold, but that I would now try to back claim. It didn't work.
Now I ma saying, I tried to avoid demanding a refund, but It didn't work, please can I have the money back.
I have no idea if it will work.
My point is that If I was unaware of PPI then the contrct I signed was inaccurate. It could be deemed that the APR defined was wrong because of the insurance element.
As I said, I don't know anyhting about this, just specualting
Well in my case, I distinctly remember saying no to PPI because I was self employed (one man ltd co). I have a policy of no buying insurance in any case.
The passage in bold above helps your case, if you mean "saying no" by voice over the phone to Egg salesman. Egg was fined by the regulator about 9 months ago for PPI mis-selling. Generally mis-selling reclaims stand a better chance if PPI was sold over the telephone where the regulator seems to place an onus on the salesman not to mis-sell, and so tend to give the consumer the benefit of a doubt.
Reclaims stand a worse chance if PPI was purchased via internet by electronically ticking a box, wherein the regulator seems to place an onus on the consumer to read the T&C and not mis-buy PPI.
Originally Posted by edt
I tried to claim for periods in the past when I was out after an acident, but failed because I had never asked for a doctors sick note.
The passage in bold abovehelps Egg, who will have kept the paperwork of your failed application for PPI payout, suggesting you acquiesced with PPI after the event as well as paying ten years premiums. The PPI payouts you applied for were refused in the past for lack of doctor's sick note.
If these applications were refused because under the T&C PPI benefit would never have been paid to you under any circumstances, then that would have given you a strong case for PPI mis-selling.
In court everything comes down to evidence and paperwork, not alleged memory or intention. The stronger Egg's case, the harder the will stand against PPI refund, as they will be raring to go to court where a public Egg victory will discourage other reclaimants. PPI was Egg's only reported win in court over three and a half years, against 107 wins reported by claimants, around 103 of these before court.
Shedsounds vs Egg - A quick win
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by edt
