Jump to content

cj10

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

51 Excellent
  1. From my perspective at least a very pleasing update, with HSBC having now made a payment of around £2100 into my current account. In the end they accepted my argument ppi had been missold, the cost of the front loaded premium and associated interest had been met when they sold the total debt to TBI, and if there was no clawback agreement in place redress should be made to me. The only disappointment was no 8% interest, as HSBC’s position remains that is only applicable in the case of paid premiums. I am somewhat tempted to test that assertion with FOS.
  2. Being completely honest Andy I simply wish to be as unreasonable with the bank as they were with me some time ago.
  3. The PPI was paid upfront and HSBC (HFC) chose to sell the debt, including the PPI and associated interest to a venture capital firm. TBI paid for the debt, including the PPI front loaded element and interest. They can continue to ask for it to be repaid, albeit without legal enforcement. TBI do not draw a distinction between the PPI and capital loan, they simply want the full sum repaid. I therefore believe I can seek redress from HSBC who missold the PPI and received payment for it from a third party. If I was making payments to TBI then I am sure I would be advised to seek redress from HSBC. The facts are the PPI was missold, and it has been settled (bought) by a third party. The original creditor did not reduce the outstanding balance by the frontloaded PPI and interest prior to its sale. HSBC admit the debt sold included the PPI, albeit they say this therefore resulted in the cancellation of said policy. TBI want full repayment so who should settle the PPI element? My position is that should be HSBC either via a clawback agreement if it exists (which I am 99% certain it does not), or by paying the sums concerned to me. I can then decide if I wish to give money to the venture capitalists concerned. I am sorry if I come across as somewhat belligerent, but I know this principle has been successfully applied in at least one other case of which I am aware.
  4. As the PPI was front loaded, in effect another loan plus interest, and added to my total debt sold to TBI. Albeit that debt is statue barred, it is not extinguished as tbi can ask for, but not enforce its repayment. IF HFC has not included the PPI principal sum plus interest in the debt sold to TBI I would not be pursuing it. As they did HSBC should either buy back the loan, and offset the PPI element if the sale contract permits, or make that payment to me. My rationale there is I owe the money to TBI, so HSBC making the payment to me will return me to the position I was in prior to having the PPI loan forced upon me. If the PPi had been a monthly % of the loan, rather than front loaded I would have no case. Equally if HFC had not sold the debt I would have no case. If they had removed the PPI principal sum and the interest Before selling it I would again have no case. Interestingly one HSBC employee agreed with the logic, but said it was not “right” hence the revision of the offer.
  5. Front loaded ppi of £2000 including interest taken out with a HFC loan in 1996. At the time the advisor told me the PPI was mandatory. For various reasons I never made a single payment. In JUne 1997 I successfully defended HFC’s attempt to obtain a ccj, with the District Judge throwing out their case due to defects in HFCs’s calculations. HFC subsequently sold the debt to TBI Financial Services. TBI kept contacting me until the debt became statute barred in 2003. Within the last two months I contacted HSBC, who own the HFC portfolio, to claim a refund on the PPI. My argument here being the PPI was front loaded, and included in the debt sold to TBI therefore it is HSBC’s responsibility to put me back in the position I should be had I not taken out the PPI. HSBC sent me a letter dated 16th July, making a “full and final offer”, agreeing to a refund of circa £2100. On 20th July HSBC contacted me via telephone to say there had been a mistake as the ppi was cancelled when I defended the ccj in 1997. When I made the point the front loaded ppi had still been included in the debt sold to TBI I was told this didn’t matter! When I receive HSBC’s refusal letter I do intend to take this to the FCSA unless HSBC have a clawback option on the sale. Welcome views?
  6. Can anyone detail the typical timetable/ timeline which Marlin operate to, ie Ist letter welcoming you to Marlin received week 1, income/ expenditure request week 3, first threatogram week 5, etc. Just thought it might be helpful in developing a strategy to deal with them.
  7. Spot on advice Given the difficulties Lowell seems to have in obtaining any supporting documentation from Barclaycard, the odds of BW Legal being to produce, at a set aside hearing, anything which satisfies S78, S65, or s86-88 of the CC Act is slim to say the least. If you have a reasoned, well constructed set aside witness statement and are comfortable summarising your position in front of a judge you stand a very good chance of setting the SD aside, and landing Lowells with costs. I personally would not trust Lowells statement that they will not act on a SD whilst a s78 request is outstanding. This sounds like a tactic to delay a set aside request until it times out, ie past 18 days.
  8. My 2005 agreement shows the Citigroup address, and I too have my doubts about the validity of this. Everything I have found via google suggests the above address was not used until after the Citigroup takeover. Your research is far more substantial than mine though. In potentially finding the archieved agreement from that era I think you've opened up an opportunity to begin to attack egg's credability.
  9. Just curious as to when egg started using the Citigroup Centre, Canada Square address on their CCAs? I ask because I have assumed it was sometime after their takeover by Citigroup in 2007. If so, my agreement has been, how shall I say, re-constructed using the latest version.
  10. Many thanks for this. I think I'll write to Capquest telling them to pay up or I will use their letter, as negotiations are now complete, as the basis for fseeking a costs order.
  11. Following a discontinuance by the claimant, Capquest I made a claim for costs under CPR 38.6. Capquest made an offer under CPR 47.19, which I accepted a number of weeks ago. No payment has been forthcoming. What is the best way of enforcing payment. I really do not want to force a costs assessment hearing, due to the additional costs involved. I simply want Capquest to honour its offer under CPR 47.19. Any advice would be most helpful
  12. Could be. I am concerned though they just want to be seen as reasonable by the DJ if (when) they subsequently pursue the claim. In all honesty, I really cannot fathom why the DCA would agree to my set aside request.
  13. We have applied for a ccj set aside, primarily on the grounds a successful defence would have been entered had we received the claim. (I outlined the defence in the set aside request). The DCA's solicitors have written to the court, saying that their client, being the DCA, agrees to this request. Any idea why they would take this tack? I was of the opinion the set aside would be strongly opposed! Should I ask the judge to strike out the claim at the set aside hearing, on the basis the claimant has made an implicit admission, in agreeing to the set aside, its claim is deficient. Thanks
  14. Hope you do have something in the post waiting for you. I've got MCOL set up, ready to go next Monday, for my smile visa if the bank can't be asked to respond to my lba-within MY timescales.
  15. Smile paid the o/s balance on my claim today.
×
×
  • Create New...