Pages 136 to the end show the Common Failures of mis selling PPI.

ps10_12 - FSA - PPI - 888.pdf

Are you sure about those page numbers?! Just downloaded it and skimmed through; interesting stuff but page numbers finish some way before Page 136.

Yes, if you look at the counter at the top of the file and use that to locate 136 That is the open letter the common failings starts on page 137.

You will note, again, the counter at the top of the file will show there are 155 pages in total.

I am not using the page numbers on the actual document.

Yes, if you look at the counter at the top of the file and use that to locate 136 That is the open letter the common failings starts on page 137.

 

You will note, again, the counter at the top of the file will show there are 155 pages in total.

 

I am not using the page numbers on the actual document.

Thanks for getting back. I'm using a Mac and, for whatever reason, it doesn't display a counter at the top of the file but, no worries, I've located the relevant section now.

Very interseting reading, especially from page 25 onwards for my particular claims. As I am expecting the standard bog off letter from egg card telling me they will not pay out claims over 6 years old. Will need to somehow send this to them as a response.

added in error

added in error

I just looked in to check if there was any corruption on the link, but it seems as though you have sorted it now

I just looked in to check if there was any corruption on the link, but it seems as though you have sorted it now

no it was absolutely fine in the end, the fault was with me

to find this document on the internet google

fsa ps 10/12

....................and the page numbering is wonky...

for those of us that want to read more

google

cp10/6

and you get the view on march 2010 of the situation

PAGES 15 & 16 of this earlier document make interesting reading

"We identified a common failing of not disclosing to the customer that the

term of the cover was shorter than the term of the credit agreement and the

consequences of such mismatch. Our view is that failing to disclose such a

16 CP10/6: Payment Protection Insurance complaints (March 2010)

mismatch and its financial consequences to the customer would not comply

with the Principles. From the introduction of ICOBS 6.4.9R(3) this would also

have been a breach of the rule."

this means the purchaser of PPI thought he was buying insurance for the length of the loan not just for 5 years :evil:r

-----------------------

AND ON PAGE 34

"Balance

3.10 The main objection from the industry was that the overall effect of the guidance

was unbalanced and unfair because it made it very difficult for firms to reject any

PPI complaint, even where the firm felt it had acted quite correctly at point of sale.

Three main critcisms were that:"

-------------------------------

PAGE 54

Consumer Credit Act implications

We agree that the approaches give rise to some implications for the existing credit

agreement(s) under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA).

We contacted the Office of Fair Trading to understand the implications for firms in

this area and reached the following conclusions.

Where the PPI is sold alongside a loan, there are in fact two credit agreements.

One for the principal loan and a second to finance the optional PPI. The former

is debtor-creditor (d-c) and the latter is debtor-creditor-supplier (d-c-s). This is

irrespective of whether the creditor is also the supplier of PPI.

In CCA terms, where the PPI is sold alongside a loan, there are multiple agreements

within section 18(1)(a) CCA. Each part – the principal credit agreement and the

PPI credit agreement – would be treated as a separate agreement by virtue of

section 18(2). They may be documented together, subject to the Consumer Credit

(Agreements) Regulations 1983 (CCA Regulations). Regs 2(8) and 2(9) of the

current CCA Regulations allow for a common heading and signature box and

common statements of protection and remedies. Reg 2(7) requires an additional

form of consent.

If PPI is found to have been mis-sold, the remedy is generally to return the parties

to the position they would have been in had the PPI not been taken out. This should

lead to the cancellation of the PPI credit agreement and refund of monies paid by

the debtor. This is consistent with Article 15.1 of the new Consumer Credit Directive

which states that ‘where the consumer has exercised a right of withdrawal, based on

Community law, concerning a contract for the supply of goods or services, he shall

no longer be bound by a linked credit agreement’.

As the PPI credit agreement is separate (for CCA purposes) from the principal credit

agreement, it should be possible to cancel the former without affecting the latter.

Clearly though, if payments were made together as a single monthly instalment, the

amount of the instalment will need to be adjusted (as our approaches indicate). This

would not require a modification of the principal credit agreement. It would simply

be a consequence of cancellation of the PPI credit.

Even if the principal credit and PPI credit were treated as one agreement for CCA

purposes (which we do not believe would be the intended effect of section 18

CCA), it would be possible to modify the agreement to remove the PPI elements.

This could be done via a modifying agreement for section 82(2) CCA purposes. The debtor would have to agree (but we generally see no reason why he would not).

Alternatively, the creditor could simply refrain from collecting part of the payment

and from enforcing the relevant aspects of the agreement. This could be done as

a unilateral concession, although this would be less satisfactory from the debtor’s

point of view as it would not have the effect of amending the contract and in

theory the creditor could withdraw the unilateral concession at any time. It is better

(and clearer all round) to have a modifying agreement, signed by both parties, and

binding on both of them. At the very least the concession should be documented in

some durable way, such as a letter acknowledging it, given the potential for disputes.

Consequently, we do not see why our approaches discussed above should raise CCA

enforceability issues.28 However, a firm should take care in how it documents the

arrangements and what information it gives to the consumer.

Hello I have just raised a thread called [Old Egg card 2001 now Barclaycard]

The above comment [Consumer Credit Act implications] seems to be along the lines of my current argument with Barclaycard.

Where if the Credit agreement if it is one agreement with PPI and in no way states that it is optional - does this mean that the credit agreement if it has the PPI cancelled - that the whole agreement has to be cancelled too, meaning that its a forced PPI agreement.

Is the above a correct interpretation of the above article/comment, thanks in advance

Hello I have just raised a thread called [Old Egg card 2001 now Barclaycard]

 

The above comment [Consumer Credit Act implications] seems to be along the lines of my current argument with Barclaycard.

 

Where if the Credit agreement if it is one agreement with PPI and in no way states that it is optional - does this mean that the credit agreement if it has the PPI cancelled - that the whole agreement has to be cancelled too, meaning that its a forced PPI agreement.

 

Is the above a correct interpretation of the above article/comment, thanks in advance

I am not entirely sure of your question..

Are you asking, if there was PPI on an agreement where the PPI was not requested and there are no separate terms and conditions for the PPI - is the entire agreement unenforceable ?

Almost certainly the PPI would likely have been mis sold - as to whether the entire agreement is uenenforceable, I would think there would be a pretty good argument but it would need to be confirmed by others with more knowledge than me.

Just popped a link to your thread .. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?380981-Old-Egg-card-2001-now-Barclaycard