Thread: Progenic "V" On:line Finance

Sent SAR to online finance on 23.1.07

have been trying to track address down for a while, and worryingly all roads now seem to point to Gmacuk LTD.

Anyway sent it off and now i wait until 3.3.07 seems like ages, but hopefully it will fly by.

Watch this space !

Similar Threads:

• A break in a double yellow line has to be at least a "car length"...
• "Chorlton vs Barclaycard" or "How to make a quick tenner"
• Can I claim "Debit Interest" and "Service charge"?
• Lloyds "Final Response" means no "Stay"?
• Received "good will payment" - but called "refund"

Received the SAR documents today from On:Line Finance (gmac UK)
the documents relate to a 5 year car loan arranged via Stoneacre Car Group.
i paid the loan off in full about 3.5 years into the agreement, i thought when i did this i would save some money in interest by paying early, though they said not.
However looking through the statements i have noticed that when i paid the settlement figure on 1.8.06 which was £4012, on the very same day online put a note to say they rebated me £50, then later the same day they siad they rebated another £712.
Seems strange because i didnt receive any of this rebate !

anyway worked out the charges to about £900 in a three month period, lol amazing what can add up so quickly

any thoughts on the rebate anybody ?

heres the statement of account which shows the rebate (REB = rebate clearly) still wondering about it.

Page Number - 2
Desc Date .............Amount ...........Balance
DD 01/12/05 ......140.96 ...........5542.04
DD 03/01/06 ......140.96 ...........5401.08
DD 01/02/06 ......140.96 ...........5260.12
DD 01/03/06 ......140.96 ...........5119.16
DID 03/04/06 .....140.96 ...........4978.20
DD 02/05/06 ......140.96 ...........4837.24
DID 01/06/06 .....140.96 ...........4696.28
DD 03/07/06 ......140.96 ...........4555.32
DD 01/08/06 ......140.96 ...........4414.36
REB 01/08/06 .....657.18 ...........3757.18
ML 01/08/06 ....—213.00 ...........3970.18
SETP 01/08/06 ...4012.56 ........-42.38
REB 01/08/06 .....614.80 ......... -657.18
REB 01/08/06 ....-657.18 ...........0.00
CHEQ 24/01/07 ...10.00 ...........-10.00
ML 24/01/07 .....-10.00 .............0.00

TOTAL S
.......................86 27.40............0.00


as you can see i paid the total settle ment figure of £4012 then according to them i had a £657 rebate any ideas anyone, do you think they owe me this and have forgot to send it ?

really appreciate any ideas on this

Bump

anybody come across anything like this before ?

confusing - from the info you've given

page 2.
paid £5683
owed £5542.04 (as per the bal outstanding)

overpaid - £140.96!! - and NO REBATE

no rebate evident, as if you'd paid under a credit agreement, that may be front loaded (interest added first), the rule of 78 would apply and an early settlement rebate wold show.

it seems evident also that they have tried to adjust the amounts to balance, as there are credits and debits on both sides of the balance sheet. when you had £4414.36 outstanding there were a lot of "confusing deductions and additions (I take it the £10 is your SAR fee) - it isn't clear, however how they have "rebated" as the figure makes very little sense. What was the APR and the actual monthly interest, and the intitial amount? i take it you made payments on time each time up to you paying this off early??

Steve

Originally Posted by stevesj

confusing - from the info you've given

page 2. sorry page 1 missing
paid £5683
owed £5542.04 (as per the bal outstanding)

overpaid - £140.96!! - and NO REBATE (they seem to have forgotten this)

no rebate evident, as if you'd paid under a credit agreement, that may be front loaded (interest added first), the rule of 78 would apply and an early settlement rebate wold show.(thats what i thought they said pay the full term amount and they would check to see if i was due a rebate)

it seems evident also that they have tried to adjust the amounts to balance, as there are credits and debits on both sides of the balance sheet. when you had £4414.36 outstanding there were a lot of "confusing deductions and additions (I take it the £10 is your S.A.R - (Subject access request) fee) (yes the £10 is my SAR fee) - it isn't clear, however how they have "rebated" as the figure makes very little sense. What was the APR and the actual monthly interest, and the intitial amount? i take it you made payments on time each time up to you paying this off early?? (Yes i made payments mainly on time however collected about £900 in excess charges on top, then paid 18 months early)

Steve

Im still waiting for full disclosure on the SAR, all they sent was page1 (a basic photcopy of payments and nothing else) the interest was 16.9% and total loan over 60 months was £6200 for car and £2200 for credit, the final payment made was the agreed amount over 60 months, so clearly they forgot to send the rebate. Im still waiting conformation of this though

it's possible they're correct - if you take a credit agreement, the discounted rate is deducted from the total amouint - £8400, your rebate for final settlement reduces the debt. unless you have paid more than the amount owing, the debt is concluded as a concession. It seems, although you need to do the maths, that page one will be the key!

wait for the page one, do the calc, reclaim the overpayment - i doubt you will see the rebate, but you can reclaim your charges you paid for (you say £900).

Hi steve sorry i didnt make it clear to you, i have page one aswell however that is pretty much as basic as page 2.
The start balance at the begining of the contract was £8627.40, and the final payment acording to the account worked out at £8627.40, though im sure the rebate should have been sent to me, it even says that in their own contract which i still have. If the loan is paid early that a discount will be awarded back to the debtor.

So, you've paid actually what they asked for plus charges.
If this is the case, then you're probably correct in asking for the rebate - these companies can try to tie you in knots.

i would sit down with a calculator, add up everything I'd paid (actual paymentsX £140.96 plus my final payment). deduct the first figure £8627.40, and see what i was left with. If there is a positive figure, then thats my rebate due, if it's still negative, then I'm straight.....if you follow - don't add in charges when you do this as it will cloud the figures.
or.....
If, what you actually paid minus £8627.40 (the credit agreement amount) = 0, then you didn't have an early settlement rebate, which they should have deducted.

don't go off and trust in their statements, they're full of adjustments.

Steve

Steve,

thanks for that mate i was thinking along those lines aswell, but like you siad the figures are full of adjustments and are difficult to follow. I hope they send me what i asked for the second time around when i reminded them about full disclosure in my SAR.

cheer

Johhny

Hi again steve,

just thought id mention to you as i have totalled all the payments up, deducted the fee's ect ect. The final payment is indeed correct as in what i agreed to pay over 60 months, i have a fair amount of fee's to claim back also.
The thing i cant believe is that they didnt pay me the rebate, where do you think i stand on this ? fraud ? negligence ? concealment ?

hiya johhny,

don't think it's fraud, or negligence - more like slow witted. They've tied themselves up. If it were me, I'd write a prelim letter "nicely" asking for the money back. As I'm sure they've made a huge mistake, and wouldn't want them to think they had short changed me. (or I could telephone and say where's me money?). Then wait the 14 days - and bam in an lba if no action - I'm sure they will respond. If they don't - it's off to court

seriously though,
Phone them - nothing to lose at this stage - ask for your pennies back that way, and back it up with a prelim letter, then set your stall out with a proper time scale. If no go, wait 14 days and LBA them. It's your money!!

steve

Sent Lee feltham from gmacuk (On:Line finance merged) who is a supervisor there, reminding him of his obligation under the Data Protection Act and that u until now this request has been ignored.
The email was pretty snotty (as per my speciality) stating the facts in very clear and basic terms so a five year old could understand the situation) Strange though how he still hasnt responded

No worries i have all the time in the world and they only have until next friday to comply. I imagine the fact that they failed to give me £650 of my own money back is worrying them a bit
Ah well the interest i earn @ 16.9% has clocked that up a bit now, not to mention the £900 of fee's they have charged me.

This is a great way of saving money in my opinion, come to think of it all my time @ £9.25 per hour, and stationary costs, and postage, and compound contractual, and various damages.

Dont ya just love the law

Life is good huh !

Just received another letter and email from online, trying to bamboozal me with contradictory figures and amendments.
In which they have suceeded on doing as i cant make any sense of them at all, so im going to make any educated guess as to what i think they should be and see how they respond.
If i ask them to correct me if im wrong (and to prove it) then i have covered myself i guess.
Man i have some letter writing to do as i have just received loads of statements from the Halifax and RBS aswell
My desk is overrun with legal papers, books and statements at the minute

i'll keep you posted, when i have sent my "Paper" i have been working on for over three weeks now

OK made final amendments and printed ready for sending in the morning with 10 days notice to them. ;-)


By Royal Mail Recorded Delivery: 2.3.2007

Dear sir/Madame

Account number: xxxxxxxxx
Request for refund of charges and miscalculations made in agreement.

My request
I am writing to ask you to refund the charges which you have levied upon my account since inception, hereinafter referred to as ”The Account”. I specifically make reference to early 2005 in which I accrued many hundreds of pounds in fees on the account with you. I am of the understanding that fees which you have applied to my account in relation to direct debit defaults, admin fees and so forth are unlawful at Common Law, Statute and consumer regulations. If you advance that these charges are not in any way punitive or unlawful then please make your averments clear on paper, showing a complete breakdown of costs, and your justifications, including specific legal case law, terms to be relied upon in court, and on what authority (apart from your own terms) you claim you can do this lawfully. If for any reason you cannot, or will not, advance these costs and justifications in order to reassure me that your penalties really do reflect your actual costs accrued. Then I can only assume that my averments are indeed wholly correct, and you are undertaking in a concealment of the truth, clearly highlighting your unlawfulness. I am sure you are now aware that charging a fee as a means of punishment or penalty due to a breach of contract is unlawful, unfair and against English Law in many ways.

Further to the above paragraph, inter alia, there would seem to be some serious errors in administration of the account. I specifically refer to errors made financially, and while updating, amending, altering, or logging payments, defaults, charges ECT. At this stage I make reference to the following appendix, and reserve the right without prejudice to any other paragraph made herein, to use said items at any stage. Appendix 1 – Statement of account, Appendix 2 – Statement of Charges, Appendix 3 – Various Bank statements as proof of payments. I also reserve the right to amend, make additions to, or otherwise inter alia use any other material I feel necessary to advance this claim at any stage.

I have spent the last few months reading and researching this subject in great detail, and believe I have built a very strong legal case. At this stage I do not want to advance to far into the complex legalities of my case, in the hope that this can be resolved without such measures.
However I am of the view that your charges represent a penalty and are therefore unrecoverable at Common Law. In the Scottish case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (1904) 12 SLT 498; the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract. This is also the position in English law: Wilson v Love [1896]; Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79; Ford Motor Co v Armstrong [1915]; Bridge v Campbell Discount Co. Ltd [1962]; Murray v Leisureplay [2004].Picardi v. Cuniberti [2003] B.L.R. 487. Brownlie v Campbell (1880) 5 App Cas 925, 950: ect.

Your charges do not reflect any actual loss; instead they appear to represent a lucrative profit-making scheme. The actual loss is the cost of automatically sending me a computer generated letter which I would respectfully submit is valued at no more than £2. Recently in a BBC television programme “The Money Programme” aired on Tuesday 12th December 2006, several experts in financial and banking services spoke on the subject of Fee’s. These experts in the field included;

i. Kieron Beal ( Barrister, Matrix Chambers),
ii. Joe Gardner ( HSBC - Gen Man of Personal Finance HSBC ),
iii. John Fingleton ( OFT Chief Executive ).
iv. Nicky White ( Head of Personal Finance at Uswitch )
v. John Struthers ( Professor of Banking University of Paisley )
vi. Philip Molyneaux ( Professor of Banking University of Wales Bangor )
vii. Ian Jarrit ( Former Executive of Nat West )
viii. Walter Merricks ( Ombudsman spokesman )


The conclusions reached between the experts, were frankly shocking, as they estimated that a returned direct debit could not possibly cost any more than £2.50 in a worst case scenario situation. At this point I draw your attention to your terms and conditions, hereinafter referred to as “the terms”. I specifically draw your attention to clause 5.3 of The Terms, in which your averments, inter alia state your right to recover your incurred costs. Further I draw your attention to clause 9.2 of The Terms in which, inter alia your averments include your contractual right to claim interest in the event of any breach of contract.
I bring your attention to, inter alia that a contract(s) (if any) binding any of the parties hereto, out of mutuality of contract the binding terms are effective on both parties. Further without prejudice to the above paragraph I reserve the right to advance any authorities with the notion of stare decisis, atany time in this case, specifically at this stage English case law, Chitty of Contracts, OFT case law and the FSA’s principles.

Further I feel that even though I will give you every opportunity to correct this unlawful behaviour, I fear that you will not avail yourselves to such an offer.
I also fear that you may advance that your charges are perfectly legal and lawful because they were written in the terms. At this point I make no admission, or have any recollection of ever receiving your Tariff of charges, or indeed ever having them drawn to my attention. I aver that the terms were not in any welcome pack produced by you, at the time of account inception.
Further I also fear you may avoid producing a complete breakdown of charges, and indeed may be using Nemo debet prodere se ipsum as a defence to hide your guilt in these matters.

Accordingly, the charges applied to my account are not a reasonable pre-estimate of your loss in relation to my account. Your charges would appear to represent a device to recover global losses (for example, loan defaulters, bad debt write off, including commercial lending in, and out with, the UK).

I hereby advance, and fully intend to prove that:
i) your charges are penalties;
ii) Your charges do not reflect actual losses incurred;
iii) Your charges are unlawful;
iv) Your charges are unfair;
v) Your terms are a misrepresentation of statement, and possibly a fraudulent misrepresentation.
vi) Your charges are excessive;
vii) Your charges are generally disproportionate;
viii) Your charges are punitive in nature;
ix) Your charges are not a genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred by On:line Finance Ltd. in respect of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant;
x) not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss in respect of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of myself, but instead unduly enriches Online Finance which conducts its regime of charging with a view to profit;
xi) not intended to bear any relation to Online Finances actual losses which it can show it has incurred and wouldn’t of incurred but for any alleged breaches of contract on behalf of myself; and
xii) are held in in terrorem to discourage me from presenting items on the Account for payment where there are insufficient funds to cover such payment of said item;
xiii) Your charges are contrary to the FSA’s principles of business and
xiv) Your charges are finally contrary to the Banking Codes principles of fairness.


Without prejudice to any paragraphs hereinabove of this claim, all contractual provision(s), if any, between the parties hereto, which purport to permit you to levy the Charges to the Account, are unenforceable by virtue of:
i. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the UTCCR)
ii. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (hereinafter referred to as The “UCTA’)
iii. The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982; and
iv. The misrepresentation Act 1979; and
v. The common law.

Under the unfair terms in consumers contracts regulations (hereinafter referred to as the UTCCR) I advance my arguments under statute.
i. 5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
ii. 6. - (1) Without prejudice to regulation 12, the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is dependent.
iii. 6.-(2) if there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail but this rule shall not apply in proceedings brought under regulation 12.
iv. 8. - (1) an unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.
v. Part 2: INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR; Reg 5(5).1
vi. (c) making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone;
vii. (e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;
viii. (i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;
ix. (m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract;
x. (k) enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided;
xi. (o) obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his;


Under the Unfair contract terms act (hereinafter referred to as the UCTA) under the following sections I hereby give authority to my averments;
i. (2) In the case of other loss or damage, a person cannot so exclude or restrict his liability for negligence except in so far as the term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
ii. (3) Where a contract term or notice purports to exclude or restrict liability for negligence a person’s agreement to or awareness of it is not of itself to be taken as indicating his voluntary acceptance of any risk.
iii. (9)(1) Where for reliance upon it a contract term has to satisfy the requirement of reasonableness, it may be found to do so and be given effect accordingly notwithstanding that the contract has been terminated either by breach or by a party electing to treat it as repudiated.
iv. (11)(1) In relation to a contract term, the requirement of reasonableness for the purposes of this Part of this Act, section 3 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and section 3 of the Misrepresentation Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 is that the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made. Reference is made to clause 5.3 of your agreement.

0n 26 July 2005, the OFT stated that 'a charge is likely to be disproportionately high if it is more than a court would be likely to award if the lender sued the account holder for breach of contract'. Because your charges include such an excessive profit margin, in addition to actual loss, they are irrecoverable as an unfair term in contract. I believe that your charges require me to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation for incurring transactions which were ultimately declined by an automated software driven computer system. In addition, it is unfair to require me to subsidise your global debt recovery costs and debt write-off protocols.

It has now been confirmed that your particularly high level of penalties are considered to be unfair per se by the OFT who reported on 5th April 2006 and are therefore presumed to be unlawful in the absence of specific proof to the contrary.

Your responsibilities
I would draw your attention to the terms of the contract which you agreed to at the time of execution. It is an implied term of that contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully, fairly and in a manner which complies with English law.

I am frankly shocked that you have operated my account in this way as I had always reposed confidence in your integrity and expertise. I consider that your repeated representations that your charges are fair and reasonable are deceptive and that they have deceived me into agreeing to pay them. Your concealment of the true nature of your charges has prevented me from asserting my Right until now.

What I require

I calculate that, as at today’s date, you have taken a total of £8347.60p in payments plus £213 charges, taking into account a rebate of £614.80 – a total of £9175.40p. In addition, I also claim Contractual Interest (compounded) under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in our contract. The standard rate of borrowing is 16.32% therefore this rate is added to the above amounts and the breakdown is shown in the enclosed schedule. I calculate the Contractual Interest element (to 1st March 2007) at £112.47 to date and rising at a rate of £0.23 per day.


The grand total of the above is a shortfall between actual payments made with adjusted charges and rebate of £548, and what you claim in error was actually made. I am also seeking to cover my actual costs incurred in terms of time, postage fees, SAR fee and stationary fee’s ect.

To clarify my position about these charges I advance the following:

Actual payments made to you by myself in cash £ 8347.04
Final payment due amount £ 8627.40
Rebate due to interest £ 614.80
Unlawful charges clearly identifiable £ 213 + contractual interest

Over Payments by myself £ 334.44 + contractual interest

TOTAL Overpayment and charges + interest = £ 659.91
Costs:
Time taken in internet and book research, letter writing and preparation ECT @ £9.25 per hour x 30 hours to date = £ 277.50p
Postage costs to date £ 6
Stationary costs to date £ 15
SAR Fee £ 10

TOTAL AMOUNT REQUESTED IN SETTLEMENT: £ 968.41 TO TODAYS DATE ACCRUING INTEREST @ £0.23 PER DAY

I request that you refund this amount in full, payable by cheque directly to me.

Targets to resolve this matter
I hope that you will enter into a sincere dialogue with me about this matter and write on the assumption that you will prefer to do this rather than merely respond with standard template letters and leaflets. After having watched and read the responses of many Online Finance cases, I understand your protocols in defending these costs. I strongly aver that your costs are not transparent, lawful, or legal just because they are written in the terms, and I suggest you read this letter carefully and give it a very considered response!
You have 10 working days, from receipt of this letter, to reply unconditionally accepting my request in principle and letting me know a date by which I will receive payment. I feel I must point out that if you do not avail yourself to this opportunity, to be fair and open, you will be leaving me very few options other than further action.
If you do not respond, or do not respond positively, within this time period, I shall send you one further letter allowing a further 10 working days in which to reflect. I believe that these targets are more than sufficient for a large company such as yours with dedicated staff and departments. After that there will be no further communication from myself and I shall issue a county court Claim at the expiry of the second deadline. At which point I will also be claiming the court fees, any further expenses and exemplary and aggravated compensation.

I look forward to hearing from you by return.


Yours faithfully,


progenic7


Statement of truth: I hereby declare that hereinabove be the truth

Hi,
quite a letter!
Think you've put a lot of hard work in here!
For me, you express quite a lot of statemented fact (BBC programme, date and time might help for research back - is this fact, or their opinion?), and there's the matter of interest charged from outset. although you might recharge the interest lost due to the effect of unlawful charging in the interests of reciprocity and mutuality, I don't think you can't charge the daily rate until you actualise court proceedings, so I'd be wary that they would just throw it out! But - you might want to express that if it should come to court, that the additional interest accrued might be x, y and z.
you may also need to justify your costs, keeping available your receipts and be able to justify the £9+ per hour for your time (if that's what you earn normally from your job, and be prepared to qualify that you do earn that - if you are out of work you can only charge the national min wage for your age group..)
I can appreciate the frustrations in dealing with these companies, they think they're above it all - good luck, im considering a similar letter for FNTF Ltd (GE Money), so will watch with interest - no pun intended


Steve

Hi Steve,

thanks yeah i think your right (and i have done a small amount of research on this) i like to write letters especially ones that are my own (or almost my own ) Not that im knocking th templates section, but for me they leave something to be desired in a way.
I will correct the date ect on the BBC programme, though the interest side of things im pretty sure i can claim a daily rate from today (the start of the claim).
And the £9 a hour, well not to be boastful but i actually earn nearly twice that, so i think thats fair ie 50% of my actual wage.
Gonna proof read and amend as necessary.

Thanks again, i'll keep you posted with updates

Ok i have made a few amendments to Prelim and feel fairly happy with it, i think the lba will be a lot stronger, and when i do the POC...well wait and see

well i posted the Prelim off this morning by recorded delivery of course, cant wait till i can get past the lba stage and im able to file my N1 with the 16 page POC attached

hi all

i sent off the lba yesterday giving them the usual 14 days to respond, which im not hopeful of.

i'll keep you posted

johnny