Thread: PPI POC required for info

Hi Tanz

nice to see you on some other thread and not trying to get your hands on my money

I am in the same boat and am in the process now of taking rbos to court for missold PPI. I would like some advice too. If you find anything out coul you post it here or to

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...world-rbs.html

i will reciprocate

thanks

Dave

Black Horse Ppi & Unexecuted Agreement

I am doing the same Tanz. Think we will have to make up our own POC as Ive not seen it anywhere on the site.

Originally Posted by stan5131

Black Horse Ppi & Unexecuted Agreement

I am doing the same Tanz. Think we will have to make up our own POC as Ive not seen it anywhere on the site.

Hello all,

Sounds like the troops have arrived We need all the help we can get.

This ppi poc was posted on one of the threads. Have a look and see what you think. I don't think the Human Act bit can be used nor anything to do with the fraud act

You can use some of it and maybe improve on it I think it would be most helpful for others if you dicuss it on your thread.
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.

Tanz, thanks to Hell, we have a good base for our POC. I read Hell's thread and she seems to have overall won her case withiout the need for litigation. Somehow, I dont think Blackhorse will be as forthcoming!

Please can you elaborate on your case Tanz ie who is it with etc. Cheers.

Stan

Thanks hell

already started editing.... will post for comments when finished

Dave

Re Black Horse. If you are claiming penalty charges back too, I dont think they list them all in the schedule that comes with SAR. Usually at the end of the statement/schedule it just says 'collection activity' and they put a lump sum figure without a Breakdown. I also know for a fact that they charge penalty interest.

hi guys

re the POC, is s75 relevant?......

hang on

just read it again it deals with debtor creditor supplier arangements...which could I suppose include selling insurance from a third party.

75 Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier

(1) If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

(2) Subject to any agreement between them, the creditor shall be entitled to be indemnified by the supplier for loss suffered by the creditor in satisfying his liability under subsection (1), including costs reasonably incurred by him in defending proceedings instituted by the debtor.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a claim—

(a) under a non-commercial agreement, or

(b) so far as the claim relates to any single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding £100 or more than £30,000.

(4) This section applies notwithstanding that the debtor, in entering into the transaction, exceeded the credit limit or otherwise contravened any term of the agreement.

(5) In an action brought against the creditor under subsection (1) he shall be entitled, in accordance with rules of court, to have the supplier made a party to the proceedings.


sorry to bother you

Dave