Thanks for the replies. I have had some progress but alas its not as I had hoped. I am certainly getting the 'Aviva deal'. Despite being contacted by customer services they are just employed merely to pay lip service and limit brand damage, they have no real power to settle any complaints. I have dealt with a few people who were reasonable, however most seem to want to remind of what the company policy is and go about case clean up as quick as possible. After seeking help from the FSA regarding the conduct of the Aviva, I believe I have been victim of a new insurance company process called 'third party capture.' This involves admitting liability immediately to prevent the use of Ambulance chasers and help or credit hire companies providing replacement vehicles, and then in my case the vehicle was written off within 4 days of the accident WITHOUT the assessor even looking at the car. I have a statement from the body centre that the Aviva assessor simply called up and said if its going to be more than £7k then the vehicle will be written off. By admitting liability it prevents me from claiming under my policy, which also happens to be underwritten by Aviva. From the FSA: 'Third-party capture or (third party assistance) is when an insurer deals directly with a person who has a potential claim against their policyholder, in order to investigate and settle the claim. Typically, an insurer offers a compensation payment to settle the claim directly to a third party, rather than settling through a legal representative for that party. This is mainly used for third-party motor claims. But sometimes it’s used in other types of insurance, such as employers’ liability. Concerns have been raised by industry bodies and consumer groups that this practice could mean third parties do not receive fair and reasonable treatment and compensation. The handling of all insurance claims by insurers – including third-party claims – is regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. This means that an insurer’s conduct towards third parties must comply with our Principles for Businesses and, where relevant, the claims handling rules in chapter eight of our new Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook (ICOBS). Complying with our Principles for Businesses includes acting with integrity, due skill, care and diligence and observing proper standards of market conduct. The Principles are a general statement of the fundamental obligations of firms under our regulatory system. Breaching them makes a firm liable to disciplinary sanctions.' It further states: 'Settlement offers made by insurers to third-party claimants should be fair and adequate and insurers should treat third-party claimants in an open and fair manner. Third-party claimants should be fully informed of their rights, including their right to independent legal advice and of the alternatives to settling directly with the insurer.' I most certainly have not been treated in an open and fair manner, and I have never been adequately advised by the third party insurer, let alone received adequate communication. I have not received 'fair and reasonable' treatment. The losses claim has been submitted by my solicitor and I will be pursuing this to my satisfaction. Further, when I tried to pursue the issue of vehicle replacement with my insurer, I was told that vehicle replacement is only possible if the vehicle is on straight finance or owned outright. Any form of deferred value contract or PCP is not covered by vehicle replacement, despite the policy not stating anything to the contrary, and the policy clearly stating that a replacement vehicle is available if your vehicle is written of in the first 12 months of ownership. I specifically asked this at the inception of the policy, only to find out it was not covered. I was also rather annoyed to find out that RAC Legal Services, who contacted me on behalf of my insurer actually share and address with Aviva! Impartiality? I don't think so, it explains the reluctance of their legal team to actually do anything in my interest. So regardless of what I can recover from the third party, I also intend to claim mis-selling against my Aviva underwritten insurers. The best bit is I have just ordered a new vehicle out of my own pocket, and when transferring the insurance policy I was told again that I would have the benefit of vehicle replacement cover in the event of it being written off in the first 12 months of ownership, despite the fact that I had just told the operator it was a lease purchase vehicle, which I now know is not covered under the policy. It still does not state that anywhere in the policy terms what is meant are included by this statement. Best of all, I have a recording of it. To sum up, I still believe and have had no evidence to the contrary that Aviva are thoroughly disingenuous, condescending and unprofessional. This company is the epitome of what is wrong with the insurance industry, as my case is basically Aviva vs Aviva I was over a barrel right from the start. I fully intend to have my day in court on each and every one of these issues, and I want to raise awareness of other forum users about this underhand conduct of the major insurers in the UK. Further to this, I have also received some interest from tabloid news papers regarding my insurance ordeal. As an aside, despite Aviva stating this was a simple case it still took them nearly 3 months to settle the finance so I could actually get another car. I don't call that 'fair and just treatment' at all, and I am quite sure nobody else will.

Basically, if you don't own the car ( lease purchase, operating lease and such like), then the legal owner has the right to stipulate where and when you have the maintenance carried out. If it belongs to Audi Financial Services, then they insist its done at a main dealer. This is usually stated in the contract paperwork you get with the vehicle, so if it is not written there that could be your loophole.

As a follow up to this thread, I replied to Aviva Support by email and received confirmation that someone would look into. However, once again I am still waiting around for information and a phone call, and the call centre is still telling me 'lots of people are calling right now, please email us' just as it has been for the last 10 days. In further developments, I also learn that my car has been removed from the Accident Repair centre without my permission and much to the bemusement of the finance company. I have been advised to report this as theft....

I had a feeling this would be the case. I am very surprised that after 6 weeks I have had absolutely no written correspondence. I wrote an email to Aviva two weeks and have yet to get a response. One would assume that when you admit liability you would want to get things dealt with swiftly to avoid incurring car rental costs and storage costs for my current car.

I have fully comprehensive insurance. I told my insurance company, who in turn contacted Aviva who admitted liability pretty much straight away (next day). I have legal cover and have only consulted them so far over loss of earnings and injury stuff, I wanted to get an idea of what I realistically could expect before launching into this with them, the finance lease company have excellent customer service (Daimler Benz) and they support my claim for a replacement vehicle owing to the fact that the original agreement had only been in place 8 weeks at the time of the incident. My insurer said that as they (Aviva for the other party) had admitted liability it prevents them from taking action, and that I should wait for the process at Aviva to run through. The insurance is still in place, and my insurer has also had no contact with them other than the initial admission of liability. I am told this is now normal to try and limit the cost of additional legal work and fees. I currently have a rental car, but this is from my own pocket, and my medical insurance is covering the chiropractic and other med bills for now, but naturally they will want the money back also at some point. I also have a loss of earnings claim which I feel is going to be complex, as I get a days paid holiday for everyday I work, so naturally a month off work means a months lost holiday and another months earnings lost, so its starting to get a bit costly already.

I dont want to get into too much detail as I think this may end up in court, but I would like to hear from anybody who has had to secure a replacement vehicle from a third party insurer, and if this is a reasonable request. In a nutshell, my 8 week old car was hit from behind late last year and has been declared a total loss. Aviva is the other insurance company and so far they have failed to contact me regarding this incident at all. I have asked for the vehicle to be replaced with a like for like example (GAP insurance and such is not required and not suitable in this instance, and whats owed on the finance lease is way less than its pre accident condition valuation) and Aviva have declined this, although not in writing at this stage. I have asked to put back to my pre accident condition; as I can no longer replace this vehicle at this price point and the only way to not suffer a financial loss is to have a direct replacement. Its easier to get the insurance company to replace the car as far as I am concerned, other wise I will then have to sue them to get back my losses and still end up without a car, and as its a credit product I cant reapply for another few months, and in any case there is no guarantee of being accepted again hence me wanting to avoid the settlement route. The finance settlement plus losses comes to substantially more than the vat free price of a new vehicle, and I am of the opinion that its ludicrous of Aviva to go down this route. Its been well over 6 weeks and we have got nowhere. Anyone have any similar experiences and what outcome can I realistically expect from this? As an aside, Aviva customer service is truly, truly awful. The call centres are badly managed, the staff poorly trained and thoroughly unprofessional. Its no wonder why people go to Ambulance chasers and run up bills having to deal with such neolithic incompetence.

I have been doing a lot research into this as I had a loan out with Blemain through a broker (turns out the Broker actually belongs to Blemain) and paid a large broker fee, which I now want to recover. Using the arguments and legal cases already mentioned, I and a number of others now interpret from the law that any fees that are added to the loan and form an interest bearing part of (i.e. if you add it to the total loan it accrues interest at the same rate as the capital) are subject to the terms of law mentioned above, that is the lender and or broker must obtain your SPECIFIC WRITTEN consent in order to add the broker fees to the loan; you are also legally entitled to pay those fees up front should they form an interest bearing part of the loan. A lot of main stream lenders add the fees to the loan, but do not charge interest on it. A good example of how this is supposed to be done can be seen on Chelsea Building society website; when searching for products quotes it SPECIFICALLY states the arrangement fee and what it will cost over the term of the loan. This same legislation applies to the broker fee's. In my case this did not happen, and the broker had breached its duty to me by not allowing this. Further to this, my case also constitutes an unfair term in the contract, as if I did not have the fee added to the loan, I would not have received the loan, as such the broker obtained pecuniary advantage. I intend to go after both the broker house and the lender under the Fraud act 2006, "Fraud by abuse of position" is defined by Section 4 of the Act as a case where a person (in this case the Broker) occupies a position where they are expected to safeguard the financial interests of another person, and abuses that position; this includes cases where the abuse consisted of an omission rather than an overt act. The cost is going to be pretty high to pursue this, double what the fee was but I think its worth it.

I am not an expert here, but from your postings you are in slightly stronger position than Greedfighter as in that you have documents in your possession that can be seen to have been altered. You should launch a counter claim to get the original documents, sighting the reasons listed above from the Hurstanger case, that you were not given all the information regarding payments and commissions at the start of the loan, and thus you could not have made an informed decision, you have engaged the broker in this case to act on your behalf and you are seeking to prove that they did not act in your best interests. Its up to the judge to decide if the payment was illicit or otherwise, but its (the payment of commission) very presence on the documents should be enough for the magistrate/judge to order further disclosure from the lender and/or broker. Again to re-itterate the point here, you are arguing that the broker did not act in your best interest in the case of the loan/PPI and as such misplaced that trust or acted other than in accordance with your wishes and thus WITHOUT your consent, breaching the 'fiduciary duty' which is required in law. The payment is irrelevant to you, the effect of its receipt on the broker's decision is pertinent.

I forgot to say its all about the wording of the argument! As an aside, some cases I believe have been concluded or settled with the lenders asking for privacy, as in the individuals concerned are not allowed to discuss it further after settlement is reached.

Im sorry to hear your case did not go in your favour at this time. I have read quite a posts where people (victims) have not been successful in court and it usually appears from the way in which people explain themselves that they place too much emphasis on the 'secret charges'. From what you have written you are on the right lines but you need to lay emphasis on the conduct of the broker and his relationship with the lender, after all it is this relationship which will prove or disprove that the broker had acted in your best interest. If the broker had acted in your best interest he would have no problem disclosing the information which you asked for. In your case, you would only need to sow a few small seeds of doubt in the mind of the district judge/magistrate to put them in a position where they (judge/magistrate) need to have all the facts present to make the correct and informed judgement. Below are the pertinent points of Hurstanger v Wilson that I feel are the crux of the these arguments; the secret payment is only the symptom so to speak, the disease is the relationship between the broker/lending institution, and it is the relationship and conduct of those people supposedly engaged by you to act on your behalf that you should be questioning: (Hurstanger v Wilson Texts exert) 34. Certain things are clear. The defendants retained the broker to act as their agent for a substantial fee. The contract of retainer contained the usual implied terms, but the relationship created was obviously a fiduciary one. As a fiduciary the agent was required to act loyally for the defendants and not put himself into a position where he had a conflict of interest. Yet he agreed that he would be paid a commission by the other party to the transaction which his clients had retained him to procure. By doing so he obviously put himself into a position where he had a conflict of interest. The defendants were entitled to expect him to get them the best possible deal, but the broker’s interest in obtaining a further commission for himself from the lender gave him an incentive to look for the lender who would give him the biggest commission. 35. The broker could only have acted in this way if the defendants had consented to his doing so “with full knowledge of all the material circumstances and of the nature and the extent of [his] interest”. (Bowstead Article 44, 18th Edition [6-055] – duty to make full disclosure). An agent who receives commission without the informed consent of his principal will be in breach of fiduciary duty. A third party paying commission knowing of the agency will be an accessory to such a breach. The remedies for breach of fiduciary duty are equitable: they of course include rescission and compensation. 36. What amounts to sufficient disclosure for these purposes? Bowstead says: 6-057. Consent of the principal is not uncommon. But it must be positively shown. The burden of proving full disclosure lies on the agent and it is not sufficient for him merely to disclose that he has an interest or to make such statements as would put the principal on inquiry: nor is it a defence to prove that had he asked for permission it would have been given. I think this is an accurate statement of the law. Whether there has been sufficient disclosure must depend upon on the facts of each case given that the requirement is for the principal’s informed consent to his agent acting with a potential conflict of interest. The last statements highlighted are very important. It is not about assuming a payment has been made as this is irrelevant, you need to question the original placement of the loan and the reasons/actions of lender/broker in placing the loan. Greedfighter, in your case the judge was incorrect as the Broker and Lender have joint fiduciary duty, the acceptance of fees wether disclosed or not inextricably links the two and the law recognises this. Your case would appear that you do not have the information at this time to know if you have or had enough information to make an informed choice at the time of entering into the deal. The judge possibly did not understand this is exactly what you were asking for.

I had a thought whilst completing my paperwork yesterday, as my student loan is is from 1995/96 academic year, will requesting credit agreements under 1998 Data Protection act still be a valid request? I was reading the statute case's and data that is not stored electronically does not appear to be covered under this ruling, i.e. SLC do not have to disclose it, and I distinctly remember filling out a very large booklet style triplicate application form, the type that does not lend itself too well to electronic storage. Had a trawl through the posts and have found nothing that address' this point directly. The paperwork of some sorts must be available and valid as the court claim was processed in December 2002, so I assume the data relating to charges and the judgement will be available. Any help greatly appreciated, Thanks.

Ok, time to update this thread as discussion with SLC has got nowhere. After posting this thread, I contact SLC and told them I agreed with the original £900 or so that I was in default with, but I disputed the charges (which added almost £700 to the judgement amount!!!). I made an initial offer over the phone to pay off the original outstanding debt, followed by the remainder of the charges provided they confirmed to me in writing that they would remove the judgement in its entirety. This was on a Monday, and I stated clearly that if SLC could write to me and confirm the arrangement ASAP, we could have it wrapped it in a week, everyone gets what they want, no embarrassment for either party. The operative agreed to my terms enthusiastically, but told me not to pay anything just now and she would get the correspondence prepared and that when this was done they would fax me a copy before calling to collect the payment. Guess what - the letter dropped through the door 3 WEEKS later, stating that they would accept my payment plan, and as soon as I paid the original debt of £900 they would mark the default as SATISFIED (not remove it) and once they proved this they would expect the remainder of payment in 14 days. Then some cretinous rectum incompetent of monolithic proportions began calling to 'collect full payment'. He was heavily derided, and is probably still having nightmares and receiving counselling after what I said to him. Needless to say they did not call again. Fast forward to mid December. After a number of phone calls, none of which disputed my proposal as it appears to be well recorded and documented in there system, I have had a further two letters from them in the last five months, all of which were a variation on the first letter. This was not what I asked for. So that's it, gloves off. As my loan is from '95 and '96 academic years, I'm going to start with a CCA, because I seriously doubt they will be holding the original agreements, I remember trying to contact them back in 1998 and they had no record of my account or deferment. In addition, I am filling out form N244 over the next week to have the judgement set aside in the interim on the grounds that I was not resident at the address, or indeed the country when the papers were served, and that the amount in default is disputed. I have been advised 'on the quiet' by a legal friend that if you can prove any of the points on this list below in court then the magistrate will have to grant your request: Removal of CCJ's - Valid reasons to have your judgements set aside I am interested to hear from anyone just how long and how dumb they played during the process of reclaiming charges etc.

I thought that Credit reference agencies were not supposed to hold scores, just data relating to accounts. If they all hold different information which could have detrimental effect on an individual being granted or declined credit, then companies who use Equifax rather than say Experian, would be receiving unfair and inaccurate information from the agency, and according to the data protection act that is an offence on the part of the credit reference agency. How come the other 2 agencies don't hold this data?

Interesting thread, I noticed when I looked at my credit file from Equifax last year that IF had recorded AP on mortgage account for 3 consecutive months, yet nothing is recorded with Experian, which was odd. Looking back , I found this was when I took a 3 month payment holiday as per conditions of the mortgage!!! Surely, this was an arrangement between IF and myself within the terms of the mortgage, but it should not be detrimental to my/our credit files should it?

Its also worth remebering that if you drive with out insurance, your vehicle excise licence is no longer valid, and hence the offence of evading tax can also brought by the court. This of course is a recorded criminal offence, and convictions for this are on the increase. Disclosures often have the statement '...other than driving related offences', as obviously this potentially throws up lots of data and can become very time consuming to collate. I have seen potential employees disclosure notices recently with driving offences listed, but these individuals could be deemed as 'serial offenders', with multiple counts of driving with out insurance, unlicensed vehicle, invalid or forged MOT certificates. Obviously I will not be employing these guys as delivery drivers...