Good Afternoon everyone. I've been asked to look at my father in laws PPI. In 1998 he took out a 10,000 loan over 12 months, with Lloyds with ppi of £3992 added to the loan. he distinctly remembers the loan meeting and did not ask for PPi to be added and even though the loan manager had ticked the box he refused to sign that section. I've just had his paperwork through after an SAR and this loan agreement clearly shows 2 signatures, one for the loan. and the other which is similar but oh so definitely not his signature for the PPi, some of the signature is close to looking like his , but more is wrong than right, also he is very particular and always signs straight and on the line, the PPi signature is so wonky and points at nearly 60 degrees up the page across the contract text. He's one of them old school people that trusts the bank manager to be the friendly honest person that would never be underhanded, and as such never questioned the payments as it was all done standing order. Has anyone ever heard of signatures being forged or added by Lloyds after meetings ? as he swears this is not his signature. Many Thanks

Thanks for the reply but you missed my point. EDF refused to accept the fact it was not my debt, and after arguing and sending letters and proof which was not good enough they broke in and fitted a key meter, I’ve done try to argue that one. My point was they have sold this debt, whether or not the DCA can collect it or not is beside the point, the fact is they have sold it. My question is, as a result of this sale, should any money received by EDF by the purchase of the debt be taken off the account.

This is an odd and confusing situation but here goes. I own a house that was rented for a few years, tennant ran up edf debt, and disappeared, I move back in around 2014. Register that account in my name and thought that was that. 2016 comes and I get a letter demanding £2500, they claim that the account was not put back into my name in 2014 even though a new account number was issued, I explain that the other debt it’s nothing to do with me, send in tenancy agreements but they wouldn’t have it. i stopped getting bills in my name and only in the previous tenants name, I kept paying what I thought was about right and then was I’ll for quite a while so was unable to work. One day when finally back at work, EDF broke in a fitted a key meter and put on the £2500 debt. The account was then finally put back in my name. I tried arguing but got nowhere and as I suffer with a few mental health issues which make things challenging when stressed and even the slightest stupid thing can make me really unwell I just gave up fighting a letter was sent to my address today only on opening could I see it was addressed to the old tenant , it was from a company called Avato, staying that the debt of £2500 from EDF for the period upto 2016 had been sold to them by EDF. If EDF have sold this debt then they would have received a payment and the money is then no longer payable to EDF but this debt was put on my key meter in 2016. As the debt has been sold, can I request that it be removed from my meter, and if so what are the chances I will get anywhere ?? Many thanks

What was added to the next loan

Right I see i think, so even though the remainder of the PPi part of the loan (which after reworking out was a bit less) £985 was moved to another loan at 14.9%, the spread sheet says i'm only entitled to £75 rebate is this correct ? as I can't see that it is as i'm still so far out of pocket Again my workings The repayments on the £985 part of the new loan worked out at £23.38 a month this was on this loan for 12 months so a total of £280 still leaving a balance of £853 with interest before it was refinanced again. I have attached the spreadsheet with my interpretation of what the guide and your help has asked me to put in, I have also shown the calculations of how I got to the balance of ppi remaining. StatIntSheet loan 3.xls Can you advise if this is right and that the £75 is still right.

Hi again Sorry I think I didn't make myself clear. the bank refunded part of the PPI when one of the loans was refinanced in 2003, the £664 refund was nothing to do with the claim I am making, it was just the refund they gave as the as the loan was ended early. The issue that I am not clear about in relation to this is that loan 3 had a PPi policy equating to £1174.84 of additional borrowing added to the loan of £5000, this was a 60 month loan which was refinanced by loan 4, 13 months later. This is the awkward bit, Loan 4 was for the closing balance of loan 3 which included the remaining PPI £984 without the interest added as the 13 payments equated to £190.09 less interest. So the total amount borrowed in loan 4 was increased by £1100 due to the PPI from loan 3 , but what the bank then did a few days later was refund £664 into our bank account as a refund of the unused part of the PPI on loan 3, the problem with this, is that loan 4 was already costing more as the amount borrowed was £1100 higher to cover the ppi on loan 3. The refund into the bank account of £664 did nothing to reduce the amount of interest being paid on the loan account, interest on loan 4 was @ 14.9%. But because of this refund to our bank in 2003 Lloyds have decided that there is no refund due for any of the ppi on loan 3, I can't quite understand their point of view. So to my workings. I assumed that the 13 payments plus bank charged interest which worked out at £27.35 each were then put on the spreadsheet, first payment on 11/05/2002 last payment on 11/05/2003 this gave a simple interest calculation of £383.82. That bit i'm fine with, its the next bit I can't quite get my head round, I worked out that the remaining PPi portion of the settlement figure which was about 19%, so after interest for the year became about £1100, this was moved onto Loan 4 @ 14.9%. now part of this £1100 (£664) was refunded into my bank, not into the loan account so i'm still paying 14% interest, on that £1100 for 12 months, this is then moved to loan 5 @10.9% for 12 months, and is now currently on loan 6 or 7 for where its been since. So should I claim the interest for the full £1100 based on the various interest rates up to now as that's what I was actually charged, and then just minus the £664 from that total, or can I only claim the interest based on the difference, even though in reality it cost me more, and i am still paying interest on that £1100 as another loan. Your guide does say that "Luckily there is a spreadsheet that can do that for you." to help sort this all out, but I cant find it.

There was one rebate of £664 relating to loan 3 in may 2003 we still have the letter and original bank statements going back to 1998 (OH saves everything), funny enough even though they upheld the complaint for loan 3, they gave an amount of £0.00 as what we would receive, the policy was 1174.84, we made 13 out of 60 payments but were only refunded £664 I cant understand where the other £500 went.

Hi Guys Long winded but will cut it down best I can, will start with the numbers loan 1 July 98 for £3000 PPI single policy of £443 added to loan (paid 46/60 payments) £144 of ppi refinanced by loan 3 loan 2 Dec 98 for £1400 PPI single policy of £198 added to loan (paid 39/48 payments) £50 of ppi refinanced by loan 3 loan 3 April 02 for £5000 PPI single policy of £1174 added to loan (paid 13/60 payments) £980 of ppi refinanced by loan 4 loan 4 may 03 for £7500 PPI single policy of £1762 added to loan (paid 11/60 payments) £1500 of ppi refinanced by loan 5 loan 5 may 03 for £11000 PPI single policy of £2383 added to loan (paid 12/60 payments) £2032 of ppi refinanced by loan 6 loan 6 may 08 for £10000 PPI NO PPI added to loan still paying Now we had a decision letter from Lloyd's stating they upheld all of the complaints offering refund of the ppi part of the loan that was paid in installments plus interest, which worked out about £7,700 according to their workings out, I had it in my head from working it out that it should have been nearer 10k but at first glance of their workings it looked OK but I still couldn't get it out of my head that something was wrong. It then clicked that they had calculated all their figures ONLY on the installments made and had completely ignored the bits that were left on refinancing which by itself without adding interest is about £4700, this amount is still being paid off on loan 6. I phoned them as the offer letter tells me to do and explained why I felt it was wrong, the guy said that I am not entitled to that bit back as the loan was refinanced, I argued and tried to speak to a manager but was brickwalled, he insisted I was wrong and that the payment of £7700 was going to be sent, I told him at this point that I DO NOT ACCEPT the offer, and under no circumstances are they to consider the matter closed, I even got him to repeat it back to me several time, as they supposedly record the calls. what I would like to know is am I wrong, am I not able to reclaim the bits that were refinanced by the new loans, or are Lloyd's trying it on Many Thanks

Hi guys Not worried as they are statute barred, but in the last week I have had 2 letters for 2 different debts that were statute barred at least 3 years ago. Not quite sure why they have started looking again. One is RBS for a credit card account that was closed in 2002 an the other is for a people's bank (anyone remember them) from earlier than that. Anyone else noticed this trend?

Good afternoon We were all on holiday at Rockley Park in April and whilst there my 6 year old was injured on the neck by a rope. Basically the park has water walker balls which are bog inflatable balls that sit in a pool which people can run around inside of. These are tied to the edge of the pool so the operators can pull the balls in. The operator had tied the rope to a fence in such a way that when the balls were pushed out the rope went taught across an area where children could walk and play, there were no warning signs and no obvious sign of a risk until it was too late. My son was standing watching the balls when one of the operators pushed a ball into the middle of the pool, the rope went taught across my sons neck, knocked him to the ground and put a gash across his neck. This was the first day of our holiday. And as a result of his injury we were unable to swim or do some other things. It took 9 weeks for it to clear up. We reported it at the time, took photos and wrote to Haven on our return, they sent acknowledgement letter and then took over 3 months to send their final response which basically says We've investigated and all our health and safety procedures are correct, and a child of six should have been supervised. But we'll give a goodwill payment of £50 Our son was supervised,we were standing next to him when it happend, we were not aware if any danger in a child play area. Am I wrong in thinking this is a pathetic offer ? We spend over £500 on this holiday plus fuel and it was ruined. An offer of somthing towards another holiday to make up for our ruined one I think would have been more appropriate

Hi I know that no insurance cover the damage to my car even though I am fully comp, I even tried the ULR route and the coughed and then checked and came back saying it's still not covered. I was more trying to draw attention to the fact that the recovery firms are ripping off the fact the car was involved in a crash and taking advantage and over charging by £100.

As far as I Am aware thr dealer does not have to tell the buyer anything about previous damage or HPI status unless asked outright by the customer , stupid rule I know. I would contact the previous keeper and find out from them any history relating to the problems, it may be a simple issue such as the car was repaired prior to being sold to the dealer, this repair might be still covered by a warrenty my BMW was repaired by BMW approved body shop who gave a 2 year warrenty onthe repair. Might be as simple as that

Hi guys Long story short, I went away for a week and let a friend of mine (who is my mot tester who works for a main dealer) Drive my car for an MOT while I was away on Saturday On the way home from work with a nice 10 minute old MOT certificate he went into the back of another car. Totally his fault. Damage being airbag deployment and bonnet damage, car still on the road and easily drivable and movable. Police who were 2 cars behind my car at the time of the accident decided to call recovery agents to recover my car, my mate phoned me and told me the good news about my car passing the MOT and the fact the airbags worked OK and the news it had been recovered, I phoned them up and said i'll arange removal from their yard imediatly, they refused and said that it can not be moved until 8:30 Monday, I then said that unless they could confirm I would not be forced to pay storage for 2 days then I will be instructing another of my friends in his recovery truck to sit outside thier gates until I could get it back. they agreed that no storage fees are payable. Monday 8:30 I Phone up to be told that £250 recovery and £40 storage, I told them that it had already been agreed that as they had imprisond my car for the 2 days when I had offered to remove it before it had even got to thier yard, he rather disgruntally agreed. The £250 is a statutory amount, now at the time I was not sure of the rules but after some reading it seem that £250 is only allowed to be charged if the vehicle is Substantially Damaged. Wording of The Association of Vehicle Recovery Operators Limited (AVRO) Substantially damaged This means a vehicle that is either beyond repair or likely to require complete replacement of significant parts before it can safely be driven again. It may help to think about this in the context of the type of removal that will be required for the vehicle in question. For example, a vehicle that has only a damaged headlight or broken windscreen should not be considered ‘substantially damaged’ as this will not affect the ability of a vehicle recovery operator to remove the vehicle. A vehicle written off, e.g. because it is not worth the cost of repair, should likewise not be regarded as substantially damaged if it is not unsafe and does not present additional difficulty of removal. As this was not the case then it should have only been £150, So I will be contacting the police and the recovery agents tomorrow to find out why they charged this excessive amount. Normally this would be paid by the insurance comanies but the problem here is that as he was driving on his insurance (not work) he was only covered third party so any damage or costs relating to my car are not covered by insurance, what a nice mess to come home to He did try to talk his bosses into putting it through their insurance because it was a pre booked MOT and he regulary does customer collections on the way to work for MOTs but they refused to allow it so he's paying for the repairs himself and has told his boss that he is now unable to collect customers cars on the way to work as he feels he will not be insured.

Can I just jump in here, is the damage in the base coat or the lauquer ? What did the HPI check you did prior to purchase say about any accident damage it may have had ? Can you post any photos of the damage ??

Thank you for your reply I personally feel that an adjudicator’s prerogative should not even be the issue here, Procedure and Rules should dictate the way adjudicators deal with cases. When rules say "Firms are obliged to co-operate with us before the deadline" as quoted from correspondence with them and then for example one deadline was 7th December and come 13th February still no response with the required information, this in my opinion unacceptable and only one of many occurrences. I repeatedly asked via email and letter what they needed from the insurers in case it was anything I could supply, the first adjudicator did ask me and was supplied with a huge amount of documentation that he was "unable" to get from the insurers, the New adjudicator was unwilling to use this approach. One thing I haven't mentioned is I have SAR'd Directline and got everything, some of the contents are just horrific, the internal notes and "jottings down" are simply beyond belief and more than enough in themselves to open a can of worms the size of a house. The reading of what I have so far just makes me think that there is a whole lot more to what went on in my case than I was led to believe also there is little or no reference to correspondence with the FOS which makes me think something is being covered up. I'm guessing I have in the region of 2000 pages to work through from Directline so'm i'm gonna be busy