Jump to content

buggerlugs1

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

12 Good
  1. If like me, you have always found the mathematical formula's that the government have specified for calculating APRs and early settlement figures pretty complicated. There is a tool from the OFT that will calculate them for you. Its called DualCalc and its available as a free download from here: index Happy calculating, buggerlugs:-)
  2. The FSA have recently issued guidance about the issue of nil or token refunds of PPI premiums: Payment protection insurance (PPI) – Refunds of single premiums : FSA Money made clear – Unfair contracts. Basically they are of the opinion that the companies should give a fair refund. Best regards, buggerlugs:wink:
  3. Spacehopper, I don't know if you have seen the following document from the OFT entitled 'Discounted APRs and PPI': http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_credit/oft299.pdf. Basically, from what you have said, the PPI was a condition of the loan therefore, according to the OFT, the PPI premium should have been included in the total charge for credit rather than the loan itself. That fact alone would make the APR that they have quoted invalid. I have used this argument in my case against GE Crapital. Best of luck buggerlugs;)
  4. green and mean It is not just nomenclature, personally, I would welcome the return of the traffic warden, because as far as I am aware they were generally honest, public servants who were allowed to use their discretion as to whether or not to issue a parking ticket. That is, as opposed to the current regime of parking attendants who seem to be paid on commission and have been known to give parking tickets to anything from an ambulance to a rabbit hutch. In my experience, they make a mockery of the law and they are little more than highway robbers. Regards, buggerlugs:rolleyes: PS: Once I have finished suing the banks over their unlawful penalty charges, I intend to sue a certain parking company over their attempts to pervert the course of justice.
  5. The company charging just 18% are called Refunds Direct: https://www.refundsdirect.co.uk/survey/. However, I have also found that the Citizens Advice Bureau publish the tax rates and allowances for the past six years on their website: Income tax rates Income tax allowance: amounts So you can check your tax payments yourself and potentially save yourself some money. I did it this way and I have worked out that I am due a rebate of £300 for the 2005/2006 tax year. Best regards, buggerlugs:)
  6. Thank you for your advice bazak1 and poppynurse, The company that I was considering using charge 40% commission which seemed a little steep to me. However, I have since found another company on the web whose charges start from 18%. I am going to try and work out if I am due a rebate myself and failing that I may use one of these tax rebate companies. I have got all of my P60s for the last six or seven years, but even so, I don't think its a particularly simple job. For instance, you need to know the various tax bands that were in force each year and the tax rules have changed over the last six years for instance, as a parent I used to get a tax allowance, but this was phased out and now I recieve tax credits instead. Also, I don't have any laundry costs, professional subscriptions or journal subscriptions that I can claim for. Regards, buggerlugs:)
  7. A few weeks ago, I got a leaflet from my union (Amicus) about a company that specialise in checking your income tax and finding out if you are due any rebates. They are called 'Personal Taxation Services' and this is their website: https://secure.taxbuddies.com/ptsindexUnison.php?userid=9000001835&ref=unison. I assume they are cosher as the leaflet came from my trades union, but I have a very low trust level these days. So I was wondering if anyone in the CAG has any experience of dealing with this company. Best regards, buggerlugs:-?
  8. green and mean You seem to be judging the public by parking attendant's standards! I am afraid that the majority of us are far less devious and underhanded than the wardens that I have met... Regards, buggerlugs
  9. Morning Waxsyd As far as I can ascertain it is not illegal for a financial instituaion to make taking their PPI a condition of giving you a loan. However, if they do this, then the premium for the PPI should be included in the total charge for credit and thereby the APR. From what you have said, it appears that Nemo have added the PPI premium to the loan advance which is incorrect. The same thing happened to me, the loan company (GE Crapital in my case) said I couldn't have a loan unless I took their PPI, but they didn't tell me they were going to charge the full premium up-front and that I would then be paying interest on it aswell. From what you have written, I would say that yes, the PPI was mis-sold. The 'Non regulated' phrase appears because your loan was for over £25,000 and the Consumer Credit Act only applies to loans of up to £25k. I'm not sure how that effects you legally, perhaps someone with more legal knowledge can answer that one. As your loan was only taken out last year, it should fall under the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), Financial Ombudsman Service. If I were you I would try complaining to them prior to any court action, as their service is free, but before you do anything, make sure you have a good read around on the Consumer Action Group website. Best of luck, buggerlugs:)
  10. Time for an update I think: In my last post, (12th April) I had just fired off an SAR to GE. Well surprise, surprise, I got no reply to the SAR. So after waiting the prescribed period of 40 days, I sent a reminder letter but surprise, surprise, I got no reply to that letter either, so a week later, I lodged a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The next day, I received a partial response to my SAR from GE. In my SAR, I requested a copy of any information that they held pertaining to me. However, their reply just contained an itemised statement and a standard denial letter about penalty charges. So I sent another letter to them informing them that they were in breech of the Data Protection Act and listing the types of information that I required, however, I’m not holding my breathe waiting for a reply. On 13th June, I received what appeared to be a standard response from the ICO which basically seemed to be aimed at fobbing consumers off. It stated that I didn’t need to make an SAR in order to reclaim penalty charges and it said that many financial institutions are struggling to deal with all the SARs that they have recently received. Well I'm sure GE (like a lot of other financial institutions) are busy with all the SARs that they have received. My heart bleeds for them honestly it does, but I fail to see why they should be allowed to break the law. If we were late with a repayment, would they accept the excuse of 'Oh, I've been very busy lately'? Would they hell! Also, the ICO assumed (wrongly) that the SAR was for the purposes of reclaiming penalty charges, so I wrote back to them to tell them it wasn’t and I have since had another letter from them apologising and basically stating that they will take my complaint a bit more seriously now. I have given up trying to enter into any sort of dialogue with GE Money, not even the usual one-sided sort of dialogue that you get from these financial institutions, whereby they just send you standard ‘Go away and stop bothering us’ types of letters. GE seem to think they can just ignore their customers and don’t even bother trying to keep up the pretence that they give a sh*t. Given this fact, I decided it would be a waste of time sending any LBAs and I thought that I was unlikely to get anywhere with the SAR in the near future so, I resolved to proceed with my complaint. The fact was, I already had all the original paperwork, but I wanted to see what information GE had got (e.g. had they got a copy of the original credit agreement, did they have a recording of the telephone call when the PPI was sold etc). I’m glad that I took my time though and tried to obtain all of the information that I could, for instance one of the points that I was going to make in my complaint was that I would not get a pro rata refund for the PPI, if I cancelled it early but it turned out that I would. I was aware of the trouble that Reidnet has had from GE Money during the county court process, so I decided it was well worth complaining to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) first before resorting to court action. I am lucky in that I only took the loan out two years ago, in 2005, so I believe my loan falls under the jurisdiction of the FOS. So, on Monday, I fired off the FOS complaint form along with supporting evidence. That should be another flea in GE’s deaf ears! It’ll be interesting to see if the FOS can get more of a response from GE than I have had. buggerlugs:)
  11. That's really good news Reidnet! I thought that once GE got the case allocated to the Fast Track that would be it. You've obviously got balls... Best of British, Tony
  12. Thanks for your feedback grumpy001. I am not sure that I understand what you mean by old and new style credit agreements and the new rules. Could you please elaborate. In paragraph two of my first post, I was referring to the OFT's guidance note from February 2000 namely, 'Discounted APRs and PPI' which stated: "However, where a lender offers loans with or without PPI, and with an interest rate discount where PPI is taken out, there are in the Office’s view two separate agreements or classes of agreement, each of which falls to be considered separately for the purposes of the Regulations. The borrower remains free to decide whether or not to take out a loan with PPI – but the interest rate discount is available only if he does so. There is a clear link between the offer of PPI and the offer of credit on alternative terms and conditions (namely a lower rate of interest), and the fact that the terms and conditions of the credit offered are different in each case means that there are two different credit agreements. Under the agreement with the lower rate of interest, the PPI is in effect mandatory, and its cost therefore falls to be included in the total charge for credit." I believe that this was made law by 'The Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit, Agreements and Advertisements) (Amendment) Regulations 1999' which stated: "First, the 1980 Regulations are amended so that certain insurance premiums are required to be included in the total charge for credit, and all others are required to be excluded (regulation 3(e), (f), (g) and (h)). Those required to be included are premiums payable in respect of insurance arrangements required by the creditor for the sole purpose of ensuring that all or part of the credit, interest and other charges is repaid in the event of the debtor's death, invalidity, illness or unemployment." In my case, the salesman told me that he could only give me an APR of 6.4% if I also took their PPI cover, thus in my opinion, the PPI was a condition of the loan. Best regards, Buggerlugs:)
  13. Progress Update On 29th March, Barclays finally coughed up in response to my claim for penalty charges on my Barclaycard, so I am now free to devote my time to the lovely GE Capital. Since GE rebranded late last year, they have been chasing me for about £100 in penalty charges. In February, I sent a letter to their registered office in London stating that I believed the charges to be an unlawful penalty. I sent the letter by recorded delivery, so I know it got there and I have got the name and signature of the person who received it. I received no response to my letter and they have continued to send demand letters (about once a week) and to phone me both at work and at home (about once a week) but, each time I have sent them away with a flea in their ear. 26th March: Sent a letter asking for a written settlement figure to their registered office (also by recorded delivery), as yet I have had no response. As I understand it, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, they have a month to supply me a settlement figure or they will be in default of the agreement. 10th April: Received one of their weekly telephone calls, I advised the operator that I had requested a settlement figure and told him that I had not received it yet. He offered to supply me with one (he was keen to give me a verbal figure over the phone), but I told him I wanted it in writing. 11th April: Fired off a Subject Access Request to their collections office in Leeds, they have got until 22nd May to provide me with all the information that they hold on me. My claim against Barclays took about six months to come to fruition (mainly due to Barclays' delaying tactics) and I am tired of waiting around while these big financial institutions sit on the back-sides doing nothing. If I get a chance next week, I think that I will send my first LBA, so that the time that GE have to reply to it will run in parallel with the time that they have got to reply to the SAR and the settlement figure request. Buggerlugs:) PS: Thanks for your encouragement Reidnet.
  14. Bluefairy, I am no legal expert, that said however, I would very much doubt that Barclays can obviate their legal responsibility for imposing penalty charges on your account simply by selling or transferring the debt. To my mind, its a bit like someone driving a car that they know to be un-roadworthy, having an accident and then selling the car on and trying to blame the accident on the new owner. As far as I can see, the original owner would still be responsible for the accident, irrespective of who now owns the car. I would say that the same would apply to your claim against Barclaycard; Barclays have charged their unlawful penalties, they have had their pound of flesh, so go get em. However, don't expect a speedy resolution, it took me six months to bring Barclaycard to book... Good luck! Buggerlugs
  15. Barclays Bank has agreed to a full settlement of my claim including costs! Prior to tackling Barclays, I had already successfully recovered bank charges from Intelligent Finance and the Co-operative bank using information from www.bankchargeshell.co.uk, the Govan law centre (Unfair UK Bank Charges Free help from Govan Law Centre, Glasgow) and the HMCS website. However, when Barclays filed a defence, I felt that I needed some more detailed information, particularly about the latter stages of the court process and that's exactly what I found on the ConsumerActionGroup website. I would like to thank BankFodder for his new strategy for allocation questionnaires, in my case, the judge accepted the proposed directions and it made the possibility of an actual court hearing more remote. (I know that the banks don't normally turn up, but it doesn't stop you from worrying and you still have to prepare in case they do!) I would also like to thank Bong for her inspirational thread about her case against Barclaycard, knowing what the other side were likely to do before they did it was a big help. In addition, Bong inspired me to apply to the court for costs to be awarded and to ask for them as part of the out of court settlement which Barclays agreed at the eleventh hour. Thanks also to; Bookworm for the Basic Court Bundle, to jonni2bad for his guide to completing allocation questionnaires, to GaryH for his Statement of Evidence and to everyone else who has helped me in my claim. A nice juicy donation is already winging its way to BankFodder's war chest... Next job, recovering the charge for the PPI (that was mis-sold to me) by GE Crapital - (Another organisation who I believe, pride themselves on the level of customer dis-service that they provide). Buggerlugs:-D
×
×
  • Create New...