Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

vjohn82 vs. HFC (PPI Claim) **WON**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4470 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I've complained to HFC reg. missold PPI but received the following responses from them:

 

I am taking exception to a number of points they have raised; the first being the "Demands and Needs" that I allegedly "completed" on the premises.

 

Note that this particular regulatory requirement was introduced from 14 January 2005...

 

I think that HFC must have a DeLorean time machine because the loan was opened on 6 August 2002 - perhaps HFC were far sighted enough in 2002 to anticipate the FSA's move into proper PPI regulation some 3 years later? Or perhaps the person handling my complaint is simply lying? I will leave the good CAG people to decide this point...

 

Also, according to Pinocchio, I signed a "Key Features and Pre-Contract document" - however, when I attempted to obtain both the documents I mentioned above they replied with this:

 

Talk about passing the buck! Looks like they do not have those documents to hand at all. So they are either lying, ready to "fake" some documents to prove I did something 3 years before I possibly could have done or are plain morons thinking they can get away with this.

 

As my fellow CAGGERS know; I do not let go so easily 😉

 

So it's onto the FO first and court action should nothing be decided; judging by their response though they will have a hard time convincing the FO that time travel is possible - unless the FO Complaint Handler is Doc Brown!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

it would appear that since they have been caught with their hands in the til, they are now refusing everything and only those of a more persistent nature are getting paid out.

 

A bit likt Cabot and Brian Carter in reverse

Link to post
Share on other sites

i doubt they have sent you any contracts, same as me only thing they have sent me is a carefully worded questionaire that is a self defeating questionaire in so much as to any question answered one way then the question comes up again further on in the next pages but worded differently that creates a different response....i think this questionaire was written by a shrink to determine your sanity, but i sent it back and let them know that i am looking for my agreements nothing else they do not even know the nature of my request but they are presuming i am unhappy with the PPI ,

they are not far of the mark as when we signed a second agreement with them in 2008 they added onto it the balance from the first agreement ,and were aware i had an illness and i could not claim reason being is that my wife was the first named subject , lol not so i have the 2000 agreement here in front of me...the second agreement my wife is named the first subject, so beware vj this is what they will come up with next on the list, the questionaire and then the excuse of first named subject...anyway subbing to this thread vj i am still awaiting the agreements then its into court as i am not letting this situation start to ping pong like we had with HFO,

patrickq1

ps

vj i had a call from the FOS this morning asking me why i had rejected the kind offer from Barclays Bank to quash all defaults and wipe clean any debts evidence , so she asked why i explained about asking my wife to prostetute herself to clear the HFO Bill, and also the HFO Capital were the company who purchased from Morgan Stanley and they charged me secondary PPI, so unless they come back with a offer i can find acceptable then its onto court with Alice...i wanna see the whites of his eyes when i go for his company HFO licence to trade if that is possible...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

UPDATE:

 

I went to the Financial Ombudsman to complain about HFC and they have found in my favour.

 

However, HFC Bank have not agreed with the decision but I am unsure, at this stage, of the reasons for their dispute. They have been found out on the documents - complete bare faced lying in fact - and the PPI was clearly mis-sold.

 

I'm trying to think of ways to force the issue simply because the FO have stated it could be upto 6 months for a decision to be made. Court action? Leave it to the FO?

Link to post
Share on other sites

seems they are using stalling tactics vj i am assuming they are awaiting the court action being taken by major banks over the repayments of the PPI, i got my claim settles for almost double what i paid in , but i am now going for the inacurate charges they made ,their accounting system use the american calculations of monthly payments and not the FSA recomended calculating system but i await the FSA decision that i am entitled to claim back ten years payments of 10.00 per month plus intrest but i have now been waiting the FSA for over 5 months , will let you know how it goes ..

patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi VJ i am still awaiting FSA ,they have not replied as to why are HFC being allowed to use the American calculations instead of their recommended UK calculations ....good to keep this thread going once i get a decision on this i can then act i also want them to reduce the 22% intrest that they put on from 8% on the first loan , we have never ever missed nor been late for any payments so they have had a trouble free customer ,perhaps that is what they dont want ....i was reading a thread on an American forum where they and HSBC have been taken to court several times for charges and intrests additions seems they use the same tactics over here yet the FSA are blind to whatever they are doing ?

Patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Yup! Not hard though. I spotted a few more errors too; they claimed I took PPI out with them because I had no employer benefits to cover me if I was off sick. Trouble is in the SAR pack I received from them before I did any of this there is a sheet which shows I informed them I had 3 months full pay and 3 months 1/2 pay thereafter. So they fibbed. Not only that but they had signed the bleeding sheet to show that they were aware I had something else in place.

 

They also claimed my only purpose for going for the loan was for a car. Wrong on two accounts. Firstly I never had a licence issued until 2008 so why would I need a car? Not only that but I lived 2 minutes from work. Secondly, in a sheet supplied in the SAR it highlights two accounts - a LLoyds credit card and a HSBC loan which were listed to be consolidated. Therefore, the loan was for consolidation and not the purpose they specified.

 

Claiming I completed the loan at home and everything was conducted there is very odd indeed... I say odd because in the SAR it states "completed in branch" and all of my ID documents are photocopies scanned to their own system.

 

So many lies...

 

What should I do now then? Leave it with the Ombudsman for the next 6 months or take court action to force a result?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes looks like they caught themselves in their own lies ,, i am wondering whether you have looked at the Payment Calculations VJ as they are using the American System and not the UK Financial Authorities Method of Calculations ,saying that its almost a year since i made my complaint to the FSA ,i excpect them to fob me off with We do not Deal with individual complaints ,ggggrrr ,

patrickq1

ps ,you now have a good case for court action,and their lies ought to be exposed in front of a judge , so court action and in consideration for not taking court action you expect double what you paid in hehe like what i got ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the damning evidence, they should just pay up. What’s the amount involved, with interest at the contractual rate?

 

The amount is around £550 from memory. The FOS hasn't clarified how the recalculation should be worked out yet but that's what my figures show.

 

Want to hit them where it hurts now to be honest... and get them in the court room with this evidence. The odds are stacked against them surely?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are obliged, of course, to try and settle out of court first, according to practice directions...

 

... oh, sod ’em, get the N1 ready...

 

But a letter before action, with 14 days to pay, surely, is a must. Give them your calculations and demand a response. Maybe round your figure down slightly to show willing (after calculating at compound contractual rate, of course, not at 8%).

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are obliged, of course, to try and settle out of court first, according to practice directions...

 

... oh, sod ’em, get the N1 ready...

 

But a letter before action, with 14 days to pay, surely, is a must. Give them your calculations and demand a response. Maybe round your figure down slightly to show willing (after calculating at compound contractual rate, of course, not at 8%).

 

Sound advice as ever mate.

 

One thought though which I would appreciate advice on.

 

The PPI premiums were loaded onto the original credit agreement to be paid off monthly. I think I only made 20 payments or so before being made redundant. However, when they sold the account to Aktiv Kapital the figure included the total amount of premiums for PPI had they run full term.

 

Unfortunately for AK it was revealed the account was statute barred before they were able to do anything. However, their disclosures revealed the missold PPI premiums hence the cause of action only starting once this revelation came to light.

 

I went to the FOS with the intention of recovering the PPI premiums I had actually repaid. However, HFC added up everything before taking the benefit of the sale and whether they made a lot of money or not from the assignment the premiums would have had to have been paid regardless.

 

So am I trying to recover the premiums actually paid or the amount for which HFC rounded up and then sold as a package (expecting me to sort out with the new creditor - regardless of me actually paying them of course)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn’t your choice that HFC sold the account. If they only got pennies for it, that’s their problem.

 

Why should you assume they received in payment anything other than its worth? And it’s not your fault that Aktiv messed up. As HFC had no interest in the account after sale, how are they to know you did not discharge the whole debt with Aktiv, ie. you paid the premiums, effectively?

 

See where I’m coming from?

 

Don’t know if it works legally though!

 

What are HFC saying?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not worried whether they'll pay up because of it being sold. At the end of the day they benefited from PPI premiums from me back then so they will at least pay those (and they cannot use the offset rule either because the account is not active).

 

When HFC replied they made absolutely no reference to the actual sum I was claiming other than to dismiss me completely.

 

So, I'm left with just trying to work out whether to claim for the premiums paid or the amount as stated on the credit agreement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we know they would try to screw me over, they have already tried with the FOS. Here are the docs... looks like the PPI was £1391.40 (had it gone full term of course).

 

What do you think? Beneficial interest in the PPI sold or written off by HFC in the statements? One makes me £500+ and the other £1400+

 

CCA

NOA

STATEMENTS

STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...