Took a loan out back in 2001 with HSBC which had PPI. This loan has since been paid off, but I didn't know about the PPI until I checked the agreement the other day, and I have been working on a freelance (own company) basis since.

Anyway I did a SAR and S77 check. The SAR they are still on with (40 days etc), but with the S77 I got this response from them:

RESPONSE TO A REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 77 OF THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 ("THE ACT")

 

We write further to your letter dated 22 February 2010.

 

Please note that we are only required to provide information relating to a loan pursuant to section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 where some sum in respect of that loan is, will or may become payable. Accordingly, where (as in this instance) a loan has been fully repaid, whether by way of a refinancing or otherwise, we regret that we are unable to provide information relating to that loan in response to any request which is made pursuant to that legislation.

 

Please find enclosed your postal order for £ 1.

 

Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me using the address shown on this letter.

 

Yours sincerely

what do I do next?

Bump

As you still have your copy of the agreement it will state how much PPI you paid, if you believe that you were mis-sold then write them a letter quoting the loan agreement number stating your reasons for mis-selling. Make sure that you send the letter by recorded post.

I claimed money back from HSBC loans dating back to 1999, good luck.

I had already sent the prelim letter before I had done the CCA and SAR, but I thought I would check what they had. The 14 days was up last Friday for the Prelim, but the SAR has still got 30 odd days yet. Should I wait for the SAR to return, baring in mind I do have the agreement and also their responde to the CCA as above, or go straight to LBA now?

Hello Moose73!

They are correct on the CCA Request, because the Loan is paid off, so they are not now required to respond.

I regret SAR is the only way ahead, but that should be fine, albeit that you have to wait a little longer.

But the S-A-R should send you a great deal more than a CCA Request, including Statements and Letters etc.

All being well, the S-A-R will give you all the ammunition you need to get the PPI back.

I suspect they may realise this, and mess about giving you all of the Data, so be on your guard to chase them. Don't allow them to go beyond the 40 calendar days (plus +2 working days for postage).

Jump all over them if they either delay, or send back limited information.

Do also check what you have there, in the loft, anywhere where you might have kept any bumf such as the PPI Terms or your copy of the Loan Agreement.

Cheers,

BRW

the only thing I had/have is the loan agreement. There was never any terms of the PPI.

What should I be looking for in the SAR from them? is it just the agreement and t&c's?

Hello Moose73!

What should I be looking for in the Subject access request from them? is it just the agreement and t&c's?

The best advice I can give is to read any CAG Threads that are similar, and see what others had to consider when making PPI payment re-Claims. Or, rather, look at what the banks tried to use as their defence to avoid paying back PPI when accused of PPI mis-selling.

If asking them for money back, you need to be aware of the amazing tricks and stunts they will pull to try and avoid paying you a penny...if they think they can get away with it!

Do also bear in mind that FOS are more or less useless, because they are pro-bank. However, even FOS has accepted that PPI has nearly always been mis-sold. So, when it comes to PPI, you have a head start because even FOS finds it hard to argue against refunding PPI. They know it's pointless wasting time trying to find in favour of their banking mates when it comes to a strong argument that PPI has been mis-sold.

Your job is therefore to build up a strong argument, based on the winnable points that many have already used when writing to FOS and/or when taking direct legal action via Court.

So, by all means use FOS, but don't sleep walk into the issue with a whimper, or else FOS will do their level best to find in favour of the bank.

For example, if you just say:

The PPI was mis-sold.

Can I have it back (with no supporting argument why).

Please?

The PPI was not mis-sold.

No you can't have it back (with no supporting argument why not).

Thankyou!

HTH

Cheers,

BRW

Dropped a bit of a clanger here, I sent the calculation spreadsheet from one of the stickies for working out the interest, and I know think that the interest is added on twice, followed the instruction on the speadsheet and didn't really understand it, it was adding it up monthly for the duration of the loan. Looking back I now think it should just be the PPI sum plus the interest they added on at the time, and then 8% statatory of the total from then to now.

And I assume the calculator here: simple interest calculator - Blake Lapthorn - Southampton, Oxford, London, Portsmouth, Winchester

can be used to work it out.

I think I have overcomplercated things resulting in an epic fail on my part.

As this was sent with the LBA, should I just resend with reivised amounts?

I think I see where I have gone wrong with the spreadsheet calculator. I had added both PPI premium and hsbc inital interest together and put this figure into the spreadsheet as the PPI premium. Then it has worked out the interest each month and added it again. So it should be ok if I change this amount to just the PPI amount?

and is the monthly interest rate just the APR / 12? (the APR was 11.9%) so 0.992%?

also the loan didn't run full term and was settled in full about 9 months later, so do I just put no of payments paid to date at 8?

the monthly payment was £266.02 all in, and the loan was incorporated into a bigger loan with HSBC but without PPI. I don't have anything on settlement figures but have both loan agreements.

Sent the LBA (with revised figures), and have had a second copy of their "we are investigating your complaint" letter back.

Received this letter back today (in response to prelim and lba):

I regret to advise you that our enquiries into the circumstances surrounding your complaint are not yet complete.

 

As we are fully committed to treating all our customers fairly, our aim is to investigate complaints in the order in which they are received and at present we are dealing with complaints received prior to your own. I would like to assure you however that a full investigation into your concerns will be completed and we will write to you within the next four weeks to update you on our progress.

 

Please accept my sincere apologies for the continued delay and for any inconvenience this may cause.

 

If you require any further information or assistance, please call me on the above direct line.

 

Yours sincerely

Suzanne Rogers

Regulated Complaints Manager

 

LBA deadline in today. Do I wait for their response as per the above letter they sent me?

got the SAR back from HSBC and there is nothing of use there. I suspect that all info on the loan has since been destroyed by HSBC as is was settled in 2001. Lucky I have the agreement!

They did send a CD of phone calls I had made:eek: (only 3 of them) and nothing to do with this loan, but I was going mad at them over something else. Quite funny listening to that!

Got the SAR back from HSBC and there is nothing of use there. I suspect that all info on the loan has since been destroyed by HSBC as is was settled in 2001. Lucky I have the agreement!

Was there any 'Proof' that these records had been destroyed? If not write back to HSBC asking for them.

Quick update, received another letter from HSBC saying they are still investigating and need more time etc this is like the 4th time they have sent this type of delay letter.

so I sent it on the FOS.

Quick update, received another letter from HSBC saying they are still investigating and need more time etc this is like the 4th time they have sent this type of delay letter.

 

so I sent it on the FOS.

Probably hear soon from them that further investigation into your complaint, then a final response offering refund and 8% interest repayment for you to accept, I have just had the same offer, grab it and run if they refund all payments plus 8%.

Finally recieved a response from HSBC and its not good:

HSBC Personal Loan Protection Plan: xxxxxxx

 

Further to our letter dated xxxxx, I have now completed my investigation into

the issues you raised.

 

To begin with may I say how sorry I am that you have felt it necessary to complain about your Personal Loan Protection Plan.

In addition, please accept my apologies for the delay in providing this response.

 

Your concerns, as I understand them are that:

 

· You never received any policy terms and conditions in relation to this policy.

· You were not given a detailed explanation of the insurance and was lead to believe it was a condition of the loan.

· You feel there was a clear conflict of interests based on the large profit margins the plan would produce.

· At the time of sale you were in full-time employment with good employer benefits

· No attempt was made to check the plan was suitable for you.

· No enquiry was made as to weather you had existing cover in place.

· You state at the time of sale your employment status was working on contracts therefore the plan had no use to you.

· You should have been made aware of alternative options from other suppliers.

Having taken the opportunity to review the records we hold in relation to this matter, I regret that I am unable to support your complaint. Perhaps I can explain why.

Our records show that in April 2001 you applied for an unsecured Personal Loan. A

loan of £8,740.00 was agreed repayable over a term of 4 years. The first repayment

was for £266.02, followed by 47 further repayments of£266.14 per month. These

repayments also included the optional Personal Loan Protection Plan, which is

designed to repay your monthly loan repayments in the event of sickness, accident or

redundancy. Other additionalfuenefits including life and hospitalisation cover are also

included in this plan.

 

At the time you purchased the Personal Loan Protection Plan, it was HSBC's process to provide customers with a Policy Document, which explained how the policy worked together with the claims procedure and the exclusions that applied. I note that the Customer Declaration Form. confirms you were in receipt of this document and that you were aware of the terms, conditions and exclusions applicable to the policy. I have enclosed a copy of the Customer Declaration Form for your ease of reference.

You then had a cancellation period that gave you the opportunity to review all the above documentation and the right to change your mind.

 

In respect of your concern that you were told by the advisor to take out the Personal

Loan Protection Plan and that it was a condition of the loan. I can confirm that

although a recommendation may have been made you were under no obligation to

accept the cover, and your signature to the enclosed Loan Agreement Form and

Customer Declaration Form confirmed that in line with this recommendation you

wished to accept the addition of the optional Personal Loan Protection Plan. This

document also confirms that the details of cover were explained and the appropriate product literature was provided to you.

 

Also please note that HSBC Customer Services Representatives can only recommend HSBC branded products and it is not a requirement for customers to be offered the opportunity of independent financial advice in respect of a loan protection recommendation, we can only give advice on our own products. However, if you felt this course of action was necessary, your Personal Loan and Personal Loan Protection Plan application could have been suspended for you to look into alternative products and make a final decision weather to continue with the plan.

I turn now to your comment that it was not established whether you had alternative

cover to protect your Personal Loan. Our records show that you did not hold any other insurance products with HSBC, and had you held products with another provider such as your other insurance products it would have been your responsibility to provide this information before any recommendation was made.

 

I also note you have stated that you received pay from your employer in the event of

sickness at the time of sale. However, benefits from the Personal Loan Protection Plan are paid irrespective of any benefits being provided elsewhere. This means that in the event of a valid claim, your Personal Loan repayments would be covered by the Personal Loan Protection Plan, leaving any benefits from your employer available for your own personal use. In addition, the Personal Loan Protection Plan provides cover in the event of involuntary unemployment, which you would not receive from your employer.

With regard to the comment about contracted work, the Policy Document confirms that you will be entitled to claim if you meet one the following criteria:

· you have worked continuosly for the same employer for 24 months; or

· your contract is for at least 12 months and has been renewed at least once with the same employer; or

· you were originally employed on a permanent basis but were transferred to a fixed term contract by the same employer without a break in employment.

 

If you can provide evidence that you were on a fixed term contract at the point of sale that would not have met one off the above conditions, please forward it for my

attention and I will consider matters further.

 

Finally I note your concern that you feel there was a conflict of interest between us

and our fiduciary responsibilities towards you based on the profit we receive from

Payment Protection Plans. I can confirm in circumstances where HSBC offers

Payment Protection Insurance ('PPI'), it acts as an "agent" on behalf of the Insurer

and not the customer. We do not receive any hidden costs in relation to the Payment

Protection Plans the true costs ofthe plans are disclosed on the Loan Agreement Form provided to you at the point of sale. I can confirm that HSBC Personal Loan Protection Plans are sold with the customers best interests in mind and not in relation to profits we would receive.

 

Based on the enclosed documentation from the time of sale I consider adequate steps were taken to inform you of the main features and claim procedures of your Personal Loan Protection Plan.

I am therefore unable to agree to the refund of premiums that you are seeking.

 

I am obliged to inform you that if you remain dissatisfied you have the right to refer

this matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service by following the procedure outlined

in our letter dated 20 April 2010. If you wish to refer the matter to the Ombudsman

then you should do so within six months of the date of this letter.

 

Meant to say, It was the same Pre lim and LBA (different sums) sent to both MBNA and HSBC, yet totally different outcomes?

as my other claim with mbna has been rejected by FOS due to it being before july 2001, this will go the same way.

any ideas what to do now?

anyone?

Have I got a case to file at county court or am I waisting my time (and money)?

 

1. The Claimant opened a Consumer Credit Agreements with HSBC BANKon 12th April 2001. The account/reference number is xxxxx which was a fixed sum agreement with a total value of £8740.00. I will refer to this as the “Agreement”.

2. The Agreement included Payment Protection Insurance (“PPI”) which was taken out at the same time.

3. The Claimant contends that the PPI relating to the Agreement, was only purchased as a result of pressure and misleading and/or incorrect advice given by the advisor (“the Manager”) employed by HSBC.

4. The Claimant was told that the PPI was absolutely necessary in order to proceed to obtain the associated credit.

5. The policy was not defined nor explained and not considered "optional".

At the time of undertaking the unsecured loan, the Claimant was misled into procuring Payment Protection Insurance as part of the overall credit.

This is in breach of CCCA 1974, where a company must be fit to be involved in activities the licence covers.

6. The policy was not needed or requested as Mr xxx employers operate a policy of full pay for 12 months of sickness, death in service benefits, and in addition to this there was critical illness cover and Life Insurance already in place. This is also in breach of Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, where a term is unfair if “contrary to the requirement of good faith if it causes a significant imbalance in parties’ rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers”.

7. The Claimant contends that the Manager was made fully aware of the employment position of the Claimant, and should have had the necessary training and experience to know that the policy was not suitable.

8. The Claimant also contends that there should have been a system of supervision and checking in place to ensure that such errors, omissions and misrepresentations were noticed, and corrective action taken, and if there was no such system in place, then that should also be considered as a failure of HSBC to meet its obligations under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

9. The Claimant contends that comments were made by the Manager which indicated that the loan applications may be refused without PPI, and the fact that it was optional was never mentioned.

10. The Claimant contends that there was no information provided of alternative options, or comparative costs of similar PPI products from other suppliers.

11. The Claimant contends that no information was given regarding the additional costs that the PPI would add to the loan, and that the Manager quoted the amounts as monthly figures without including interest as a deliberate act intended to cover the true cost.

12. The Claimant contends that it was never explained that the PPI would attract interest.

13. The claimant contends that the pressure applied by the Manager, and the inexperience of the signatories in financial matters at the time, contributed to the forms being signed without them being fully checked.

14. Notwithstanding that the forms were signed, and in any respect, the Claimant contends that there was an entitlement to expect that the advice and information given was true and honest, and that a reasonable level of care and skill would be given to ensure that the best interests of the customer were being met.

15. The Claimant contends that the PPI was sold with a view to meeting sales targets and providing bonuses and commission for the Manager and staff, rather than to help the Claimant attain a better financial position.

16. The Claimant believes that these conflicts of interest put the Manager in a position where future career path and financial gain were a prime motivator, and because of this the Manager did not maintain the duty of honesty and care that is a requirement in law, and under the Banking Code, OFT Guidelines and the FSA Handbook.

17. In the light of the contentions made above, the Claimant asks that the court consider that an “unfair relationship” exists under the terms of section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Should the court decide that section 140A does not apply; the Claimant contends that the actions of the Defendant grossly contravene ordinary principles of fair dealing as outlined in section 138 of the Act, and therefore Agreement A and Agreement B should each be ruled as an “extortionate credit bargain”.

18. In considering this, and all matters in this claim, the Claimant asks the court to take into account the following Principles of Business which are legally binding on [the company], under the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000, and are contained in the FSA Handbook:

· Principle 1 Integrity - A firm must conduct its business with integrity.

· Principle 2 Skill, care and diligence - A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence.

· Principle 3 Management and control - A firm must take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems.

· Principle 5 Market conduct - A firm must observe proper standards of market conduct.

· Principle 6 Customers' interests - A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.

· Principle 7 Communications with clients - A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading.

· Principle 8 Conflicts of interest - A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client.

· Principle 9 Customers: relationships of trust - A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment.

19. The Claimant contends that the Defendant has been given ample opportunity to seek a resolution to the matters raised in this claim.

20. Under CPR18 claimant requests full documentary evidence of absolute compliance with best practise in sale of PPI and detailed record of training undertaken by staff.

21. 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.

22. 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 £1879.21 by conferring a benefit under an ineffective transaction.

b) If the Court is unable to perform restitution, then the Claimant seeks damages of £1879.21 by virtue of the Defendants’ actions, be they fraudulently or mistakenly, in obtaining the Insurances.

c) Alternatively, the Claimant seeks damages of £1879.21 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 £1879.21

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 05/05/2001 to 27/05/2010 of £1,278.00 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.41

23. Schedule showing interest calculated at the rate quoted at (22.e) is attached to these particulars of claim, as follows:

- Schedule A - Statutory Interest calculated at 8%

will this be ok for the POCs? and also just want to check when working out the figures to claim, if the loan was paid off early (month 8 of a 48 month term) how is the best way to calculate/show this, for the interest incurred per month at the time?

Is a rebate of PPI always paid when the loan is settled early? I can't remember ever getting a part refund when I refinanced this loan with HSBC, and as it was late 2001, have no records of statements to check, and can't get hold of any.

Should I just claim the full amount, and see what they say in defence?

is anybody reading this? I have had no replys since last month?

anyone?