Thread: LTSB PPI claim

Can someone point me in direction of the necessary wording for a N1 in relation to PPI on a credit card.

It is the pretty much standard case of mis selling, the stuff was expensive, useless (i am self employed and have private medical/sick cover), and far as i can remember bunged on the card without my knowledge/consent.

I have written to ltsb, givng 14 days for refund/reply but that failed to even get a phonecall or standard fob off letter, I will give them a further 7 to at least acknowlegde me, then I am going for the claim.

Ta in advance

Similar Threads:

• LTSB v Time4Action, response to my claim - advice please?
• Hi all. Up against LTSB! correct claim address
• Times and deadlines for claim against LTSB
• Dual claim against LTSB?

Hi
I'm in a similar position to you, I'm self employed and have been some 17 years, was mis-sold PPI 3 1/2 yrs ago, I only found out that it was invalid when I tried to claim last Feb. I have since canceled it on a number of occasions and have even been promised my money back in full, this was in Jan this year, but still no cash yet!!!

I have sent letters and their time is now up and the N1 is on my desk....

Good luck

James

Just a quick update on this one.

Unsurpursingly after 3 attempts to even get ltsb to acknowledge me I have issued a claim today.

Had to do it by post though as MCOL couldnt handle the length of the particulars which ran to 3 pages.

I am pretty much expect LTSB to default on this, for 1 SCM are probably too busy dealing with charges claims, I wouldnt be entirely surprised if they put in a charges defence.

Which is an interesting question, if they put in a defence which is totally off topic and has nothing to do with the claim can the defence be struck out and a default issued. eg, if someone claimed against me and i filed a defence which said "they smell of blue cheese and they believe in the devil" would that be accepted as a defence and allocation questionaires be issued, or could the claimant point out the defendants failure to take the court process seriously or make a reasonable attempt to defend the claim.

Is this normal?

Issued my N1 by post coz the particulars ran to 3 pages so way too big for MCOL

I phoned court a couple of days after sending and was told they got it fine, but it wouldnt be issued immediately it could take 2 weeks.

They have cashed fee back end of last week. Still no sign of my copy of the serving notification.

Another small update.

Turns out I am having postal issues (moved house and royal mail seem to be getting confused) ltsb did reply, standard fob off.

I particularly liked the "all our staff are instructed to fully explain all our products and answer any questions you may have, but given the time elapsed this would impossible to substantiate"

Kind of my point, it wasnt explained. I aint thick, if it was explained or even mentioned I would have said NO THANKS. I had no need of the policy, never had a policy document or insurance certificate.

Well claim issued, 7 days to first judgement opportunity, will they defend, who knows?

good luck - pls post your particulars of claim - regards

Fingers are very much crossed!!

Issued a judgement yesterday but due to backlog, bloody charges grabbers it wont be processed for another few days, giving ltsb a chance to acknowledge.

I have a mate in LTSB management he tells me they have a large dept for charges now and they are getting literally 1000's per week in claims.

And BBC current affairs prog (dont remember which 1) are doing a entire program on charges this week. I think its the 1 with scottish woman off Newsnight.

And for the person who asked, here is a copy of my N1. I nicked from someone else on this site, so I dont take any credit for it. Obviously changed a few bits to fit my situation and added/deleted bits.



PARTICULARS OF CLAIM


1. The Claimant had a credit agreement xxxxxxxxxxx ("the Agreement") with the Defendant which was opened on or around January 1998 and closed on or around September 2006.

2. At the time of undertaking the credit agreement, the agent acting on behalf of the Defendant misled the Claimant into procuring Payment Protection Insurance ("the Insurance") as part of the overall credit bargain.

3. The Claimant contends that:

a) Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the Claimant was misled and false information was given during the interview process on the day the agreement was made;
i) The Insurances sold to the Claimant were not defined nor explained and were not "optional" as laid out in the said agreement, the Claimant was informed that The Insurance was part and parcel of having a credit card. The Defendants agent misrepresented the fact that the insurance was compulsory, due to inexperience in financial matters at the time of the Claimant, this was taken at face value; the Claimant felt that there was no choice but to agree to the credit bargain.
ii) The Insurance was mis-sold, as the Claimant was employed at the time in an industry where redundancy is unheard of, the Claimant’s employers operated a policy of death in service benefits and sickness policy of such a generosity that any insurance would have been wholly unnecessary;
iii) Furthermore the Claimant in February 2002 commenced self employment and the Defendant was made aware of this, no attempt was made by the Defendant to ascertain whether The Insurance remained valid or indeed appropriate to the Claimant’s circumstances.

b) The Claimant contends that the agent for the Defendant was fully aware of the Claimants circumstances and fraudulently passed incorrect details to the insurer to obtain these same Insurances from the insurer. The Claimant believes this grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing.

c) If the Court finds that incorrect details were not passed as a result of fraudulent behaviour then the Claimant contends that incorrect details were passed to the insurer through the Defendants’ agents’ mistake as to facts.

d) The Claimant further contends that if the Insurance was applied correctly, that the Agreement was not executed in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974;
i) As the Insurance was in fact a charge for credit on the Conditional Sale Agreement, it could not also be part of the credit on the additional insurances agreement as under section 9 (4) CCA credit charges cannot be treated as credit even where time is given for their payments
ii) If the Insurance was not a charge for credit in respect of the Conditional Sale Agreement, as it was compulsory, it was a charge for credit on the additional insurances and under section 9 (4) CCA credit charges cannot be treated as credit
iii) For the reasons stated in either (i) or (ii) above, the agreement for additional insurances failed to state the correct amount of credit and did not comply with paragraph 2, schedule 6, which requires that regulated agreements contain as a prescribed term stating the correct amount of credit
iv) The agreement for additional insurances was therefore improperly executed under section 61 (1)(a) of the CCA.


4. Accordingly the Claimant asks:

a) The Court finds that the Defendant acted in a way grossly contravening ordinary principles of fair dealing and reopens the credit bargain to perform restitution to rectify the unjust enrichment performed, to the detriment of the Claimant by the sum of £xxxxx by conferring a benefit under an ineffective transaction.

b) If the Court is unable to perform restitution, then the Claimant seeks damages of £xxxxxx by virtue of the Defendants agents’ actions, be they fraudulently or mistakenly, in obtaining the Insurances which offered no benefit to the Claimant.


c) Alternatively, the Claimant seeks damages of £xxxxx in regards to the Defendants clear breach of the Claimants human rights as prescribed by Article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 whereby the Defendants actions did cause the Claimant to suffer personal loss to the sum of £xxxxx.

d) Court costs;

e) The Claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from various charging dates to 16 November 2006 of £xxxxx and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxx per day.

Well this is proving more awkward than all my charges ones put together.

Patiently waited for Court to catch up, even though that gave ltsb further opportunity to delay things, and of course it would be nice to have this money for xmas.

Now court tell me there is a letter dated 7 December detailing that the sum has been settled, purporting to be from me. I think I would have remembered writing that or receiving the money.

They are looking into it, but cant get back to me until tomorrow. In the meantime my judgement cant be actioned.

They think it has possibly been put on wrong case. Personally I think LTSB have written it as I have claimed for charges on the same account. However should they have not filed a defence for that (an erroneous defence which I mentioned earlier, where do i stand?) rather than a letter.

So will i get a judgement tomorrow, not likely, maybe monday? This is taking the mickey.

On the upside it appear to have totally passed LTSB by, so unless the dragon wakes up I will get my judgement soon.

The letter was on the wrong case.

So hope and pray I will have judgement on monday.

Oh happy days, that will make xmas a lot lot nicer.

How to spend all that lovely wonga.

Argh another couple of days to wait.

Processing backlog means my judgement request sent off tuesday wont be processed until tomorrow at earliest.

Judgement entered this morning, right ltsb pay up.

Xmas has come early baby!!

A little over £3k, should pay for a lot of mince pies.

Originally Posted by reidnet

I think most of the courts are a bit busy with claims just now... I know Dundee court is quite busy processing claims so there can be a bit of a dely.

good lokk and please post me your PPI letter for lltsb

It rumbles on...

ltsb are now playing the proverbial ostrich and ignoring me and the court.

2 letters, 3 weeks since judgement and no sign of cash.

Even wrote to their solicitors to see if they could lean on LTSB.

So court are sending me a enforcement pack to sent on the bailiffs. That should be a laugh. Just as well I am not desperate for this money.