Hi all, question ? If I had a valid PPI claim via Nationwide but they declined primarily on basis of non advised sale despite me being pushed into taking it during a call they made to me due to size of loan ( over £20k told must have it to get loan approved and also only covered me and not spouse even though joint loan !! - they have conveniently NOT got the recording of the call ) Due to ill health ( mental health issues ) I did not follow through with the ombudsman as I was not compos mentis and capable of dealing with the issue at the time in the required timescales. My question is my claim was on a SPECIFIC loan I had but they advised during their declination that I had a 2nd consolidation loan which they also denied any wrong doing re PPI added to that loan too. Now I haven't technically made a claim against the 2nd loan ( primarily as I was not aware there had been any consolidation of the 1st loan - I have no paperwork or records of this ) So even though they have declined my claim in reference to the initial loan am I able to start a NEW claim for the 2nd consolidatory loan that they referenced ? I am in a better position to now try and deal with these issues ( not fully better but still a way to go ) but I don't want to put myself through the process again ( as it was extremely stressful before ) if it going to be an immediate decline on the basis that they have declined the 1st claim and referenced the other loan in that Can anyone advise perhaps where my legal standpoint is ?

Hi dx100uk, thanks for the advices. Is it feasible contacting the FOS/FCA at this point as I do not have the full facts from James yet ? As I say, everything I have at the moment is more ball park assumptive rather than definitive and I do not want to give unwitting inaccurate information, especially to the FOS in case this in any way prejudices his position.....it also it throws up a point of whether I am actually able to speak to FOS/FCA as an advocate for James ? Perhaps until I have all of James' info from each of the parties involved via the SARS would it not be best to hold back for the moment ?

Hi all, apologies for the late degree of replies, I was using a mobile earlier and could not navigate the page very well. I have been trying to reply to each individual reply but cannot see where I can do that and I used "quote" which I am informed is incorrect (apologies if this has somewhat cocked things up) Anyway I have established a little more info , as per Andy's enquiry, James ( my friend and the client in this instance) has confirmed it was Debt Free Direct who had set up the original IVA but they went into administration and were sold onto a company called Apperture, This is the company that Equity in Finance are supposedly holding any PPI recoveries for. It transpires that Equity In Finance were "promoted" by Debt Free Direct as being able to recover PPI costs for James on the premise that HE would be receiving any recoveries less their fee for handling the claims, there was absolutely NO transparency that they would be with-holding all funds received for any and ALL ppi claims whether involved or not. James is calling to see me tomorrow and we are going to check his credit file and also send off SAR's to ALL parties involved in the debacle. This will include, Apperture, Equity in Finance, The IP who handled the IVA and each of the banks/ loan companies & credit card companies he has personally claimed PPI from and also the ones that Equity in Finance have handled directly. As I say there is definitely a rabbit off somewhere - Equity in Finance have taken / been sent every penny of the PPI recoveries including the ones that they have had no involvement in and the most recent being just in the last 4 weeks, despite the IVA being advised as closed in 2013 !! even on the initial debt of £17000 plus fees ( currently shown on debt free direct website @ circa £3500 - yes they are apparently trading again !! ) the payments made under the IVA and the recoveries under PPI have totalled been more than £40k so James is owed a hell of a lot of money which I can see no way that these companies are legally with-holding from him. Lets see what the SARS bring in and then we will have a more defined basis of EXACTLY what we are looking at Thanks guys for the initial advices - I will keep you all up to date on developments but any advices in the interim would be greatly accepted Just a few links for reference :- https://www.credit-connect.co.uk/commercial-news/corporate-insolvency/debt-free-direct-sold-aperture/ Debt free directs current ?? website https://www.debtfreedirect.co.uk/ Debt free direct confirmation of average fees and how paid https://www.debtfreedirect.co.uk/fees

Hi London 1971, he paid the iva from 2007 till 2012 but then they extended it by a further 12 months and the last payment made was in 2013 … .but since then he has had NO certificate of completion and every penny of PPI recovery has been paid directly to equity in finance as they purport to have taken over from debt free direct on administering any monies recovered from ppi claims including those claims they have not had any involvement in. Something stinks and I want to try and help him sort it out but he is not good at keeping records and he's quite erratic with his recollections ( he thinks debt free became equity in finance via some takeover which he said he had a letter but he can't find anything ) I am chasing quite a few shadows and although he can get a SAR I am concerned about the validity of what they will send out may well be doctored to suit ..... ..this is gonna be a long road I fear that a lot of time is gonna be consumed but I truly hate the thought of someone being ripped off on the basis that the 3rd party agents have exposed an ignorance and exploited it

Last payment he tells me was Sept 2013 ....don't know about his credit file. He is calling today so I will (with his consent) check his credit file via the free checks with him 

Hi Guys, this is a little bit wooly on full details at the moment but I will give you the info on the basis of what I know at present and will get more "firmed" up info in due course. A Friend took out an iva in 2007 for total advised debts of £17k I advised him to look at a DMP but he went the way of the IVA in the belief it would be completed in 5 years. it "completed" and I use that term loosely in 2013 - 6 years in total ........ .they came to him after 5 years and advised a further 12 months payments would be required to finish his IVA obligations. Now here comes the bits he can't understand. Here are the main points:- 1) He was advised he was paying 72p in the £ so he has repaid £12250 of the £17k debt and this was apparently INCLUSIVE of ALL the IP fees. 2) The company used was called Debt Free finance but they changed mid term to a company called Equity in Finance no advices given as to why by either company or the IP 3) They approached him mid term to offer their services for recovery of any PPI on the premise that any such recoveries would aid the settlement of the IVA and could complete it early 4) They ( Equity in Finance ) had directly recovered ( in addition to the £12250 of IVA payments made by my friend 2013 ) a further £26k of PPI payments 5) In addition to this my friend had 3 further PPI claims he made directly himself AFTER 2013 when he checked for old paperwork, where a further approx £18k ( Net of Tax ) was recovered BUT paid directly to Equity in Finance by the companies involved - This is despite noting on their paperwork that the IVA was closed - CLEARLY PRINTED ON THE BANKS COMMUNICATIONS and more so a recorded phone call regarding the acceptance in regards RBS confirmed they were making the payment payable to my friend and to his home address and this was verbally confirmed twice !! the IVA company ( in whatever guise they are now in ) have had payments totaling £12250 directly from the IVA plus somewhere in the region of £44k in PPI payments based on an initial debt of £17k !! My friend has contacted them and all they say is that they are holding funds for distribution ..... this is despite the IVA completing in 2013, that said, they have NEVER, despite requests, forwarded the completion certificate My reckoning ( and please please correct me ) is that they should with-hold a minimum of £4750 of the ppi money being the shortfall between the £17k owed and the £12250 paid under the iva but realise that the £12250 ( as noted earlier ) was apparently inclusive of the IP fees, so clarity is needed on exactly what the IP fees ACTUALLY were ?? lets assume the fees for the IVA were £3k ?? ( a totally assumed round figure as I have no idea of what standard IVA / IP fees are ) the revised amount paid back to the creditors would have only been £9250 and means a balance of £7750 of the starting debt of £17k should have been offset from any PPI recoveries. As the IVA company handled the PPI recovery of £26k and assuming a PPI handling fee of 30% was applied ( worst case scenario) then the AVAILABLE funds for distribution should have been circa £18200. If they distributed the outstanding £7750 for the balance of the IVA debt from this, then this should leave approx £10450 payable back to my friend PLUS the claims he made himself totalling £18k net of tax should now ALSO be paid directly to him from the funds the banks have sent direct to the IVA company. On those assumptions I believe my friend should be in receipt of £28450 of PPI repayments after the full IVA debt of £17k plus an assumed £3k of IVA fees based on the following :- Initial Debt £17k + £3k IVA fees = £20k due Total PPI recovery via IVA less 30% recovery fees = £ 36200 Total paid by directly by client during IVA term + 1 year = £12250 Balance remaining and therefore due direct to client = £28450.00 The questions I have no idea about is ..... .he doesn't think he has all the paperwork from the initial commencement is 2007 can he apply (and are the IVA bound) for an SAR to supply all paperwork so he can validate the above assumed figures ( these are from his recollections but he thinks they are in the close ballpark ) Are the IVA company entitled to retain any monies over and above the cost of the initial debt on which the IVA was based and the subsequent and clearly outlined fees for handling the IVA. It initially appears to me that this company are milking my friend dry and if he is entitled to this money I will do my damnedest to ensure he gets it. Having been a member of this forum for some time ( NRAM mortgage prisoner ) I have read horror stories of unscrupulous IVA companies getting away with murder and facing no issues of recrimination and the claimants losing out on too many occasions. I hope I have provided as much advice of what I understand the situation to be but if additional info is required please ask and I will endeavor to obtain this from him where possible. He is not exactly a vulnerable adult but his reasoning and grasp of the situation at hand has, I believe, led him to be taken advantage of by these companies and I want to ensure that this stops now and he is treat in a fair and reasonable manner by all the companies involved. Thanks in advance

Thanks, I didn't have enough posting credit to add it legitimately

I'm sure you will all be aware by now but just in case you haven't seen here is the ruling which gives full details of those involved and how it "NOW" impacts those of us who have the £25k + loans on the Together product .... ......things look extremely positive pending any appeal which may or may not come into fruition ..... .........anyway here is the ruling ( it wont let me post the url link so I have to replace the full stops with commas to get it on screen and just copy + paste but replace the commas with full stops ) http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/nram-plc-v-mcadam-hartley/ On a seperate matter I have my own enquiry if anyone can answer or shed some valuable knowledge I would be most greatful How is the amount of redress arrived at ? I am assuming that for the period that the agreement was not compliant ( apologies if this is not the correct term ) that the loan will be recalculated allowing for just the capital repayments against the starting balance for that term, effectively reducing the balance by the "actual"amount being paid and not incorporating any interesticon added monthly. In simple terms for ease of reference, if say the period in dispute is 6 years and payments were £100 per month with the starting balance of £30,000, then the recalculated balance following 72 payments ( 6 yrs at 12 payments per year of £100 p/m) should be £30000 - £7200 = £22800 it would be after this period that interest can then be applied so from balance £22800 onwards, NRAM can then incorporate interest offset against the capital repayments and the balance would then reduce at a slower rate as a proportion of the capital being paid is being offset by the now correctly applied interest ? Is this how the redress will be issued because if they just refund the interest which was technically not due for payment this figure will not be as much due back? For instance 72 x amount of interest refunded is less than recalculating the loan from scratch minus any application of interest( for the disputed period ) as the running total of the balance when 1st incorporating the interest will always be greater than the balance if just capital repayments. ie £30000 minus monthly capital but plus interest over 6 years with 6 years interest then refunded would have a greater due balance than £30000 minus purely monthly capital repayments over 6 years ( effectively being the refunded interest due ) would have a smaller due balance as calculations did not include interest upon interest calculations. Apologies for over elaboration, I just need to try and get this straight in my head when I ( inevitably ) go head to head with some office based person to review this when my letter eventually arrives ( This is despite previously having very aggressive people at NRAM originally telling me on more than 4 occasions when I challenged them when the original £25 k limit people were given refunds, that I had and would have no rights to the same recovery of interest and that documents were executed correctly and were just administration errors .....effectively "go away !" If someone in the know regards these calculations could give some advice on my "assumptions" I would be most grateful. I am to say in the least disappointed however that it has not been ruled that redress will be given directly to us ( NRAM customers ) as opposed to reducing the term of the mortgage..............This is unfair as we as the customers cannot change the terms of our mortgage ( I was refused a request to reduce my term from 30 yrs to 20 with higher payments when I requested such when NRAM took over as they said "we're not offering revised or new products" ) yet they feel they can now change when it suits them - I have had to lose out on money I have paid (and not due) to them , which indirectly has added to the situation that has affectively led to my dmp as those monies would have been used to effectively avoid this situation by paying other bills. Look forward to any advices

Going slightly off topic but not entirely, How is the amount of redress arrived at ? I am assuming that for the period that the agreement was not compliant ( apologies if this is not the correct term ) that the loan will be recalculated allowing for just the capital repayments against the starting balance for that term, effectively reducing the balance by the "actual"amount being paid and not incorporating any interest added monthly. In simple terms for ease of reference,if say the period in dispute is 6 years and payments were £100 per month with the starting balance of £30,000, then the recalculated balance following 72 payments ( 6 yrs at 12 payments per year of £100 p/m) should be £30000 - £7200 = £22800 it would be after this period that interest can then be applied so from balance £22800 onwards, NRAM can then incorporate interest offset against the capital repayments and the balance would then reduce at a slower rate as a proportion of the capital being paid is being offset by the now correctly applied interest ? Is this how the redress will be issued because if they just refund the interest which was technically not due for payment this figure will not be as much due back? For instance 72 x amount of interest refunded is less than recalculating the loan from scratch minus any application of interest( for the disputed period ) as the running total of the balance when 1st incorporating the interest will always be greater than the balance if just capital repayments. ie £30000 minus monthly capital but plus interest over 6 years with 6 years interest then refunded would have a greater due balance than £30000 minus purely monthly capital repayments over 6 years ( effectively being the refunded interest due ) would have a smaller due balance as calculations did not include interest upon interest calculations. Apologies for over elaboration, I just need to try and get this straight in my head when I ( inevitably ) go head to head with some office based person to review this when my letter eventually arrives ( This is despite previously having very aggressive people at NRAM originally telling me on more than 4 occasions when I challenged them when the original £25 k limit people were given refunds, that I had and would have no rights to the same recovery of interest and that documents were executed correctly and were just administration errors .....effectively "go away !" If someone in the know regards these calculations could give some advice on my "assumptions" I would be most grateful. I am to say in the least disappointed however that it has not been ruled that redress will be given directly to us ( NRAM customers ) as opposed to paying the actual cash back, as I have had to lose out on money paid and not due to them , which indirectly has added to the situation that has affectively led to my DMP as those monies would have been used to effectively avoid this situation by paying other bills. Look forward to any advices

I have had numerous loans and credit card agreements with companies, all paid off other than 2 current Northerm Rock loans which are currently part of DMP. However I am interested as to how far back I can look at reclaiming PPI. The reason being is that as far as I can ascertain from my old papers ( I ain't got copies of everything - spring cleans !! ) that I had PPI with HFC and Alliance and Leicester, plus a couple of loan agreements with ( then ) Abbey. All of these however were well over 6 years ago - are they exempt from reclaiming ??? I also know that I had PPI on barclaycards, debenhams store card, Capital one and Egg. In the case of Egg they even declined to deal with a claim made when I was made redundant as " I had not followed their procedures " such procedures were never advised !!!! All of these are within the last 6 years I also had paymentcare cover with my mortgage via Abbey and Aviva ( seperate from my life cover ) which I have stopped paying in the last 3 years but had this since 1998 till 2008 and paid premiums of over £35 at start of the policy to £65 when it ended - again they declined to deal with a claim for redundancy on the premise that they had a 2 month exemption period ( fair enough after requesting a copy of terms it was noted BUT was never ever highlighted at point of sale, in fact point of sale was no advce other than here is your mortgage, here is the endowment ( been since recovered ), life cover and additional cover for your income protection .....enjoy !! Any advices on what I can look to claim back and what I am unable due to whatever reasons would be greatly appreciated as my budget is stretched tighter than a pair of Rod stewarts legendary leopard skin pants and any recoveries made can be made as on offer to try and settle DMP's and free up some income so my beans can be 29p a can and not 9p a can and perhaps clothes shopping for my 6 yr old can be something of an "as and when required basis" and not only when he's threadbare and the subject of ridicule at school. Any help / advices would be most welcome - I agree that I am in the DMP due firstly to my own doing but as all of these were loans / agreements were " under advisement " of the respective banks / card companies they too are responsible and if I have been unfairly charged or given innacurate advices then they must also be held responsible and contribute. hopefully what goes around comes around. Many Thanks in advance to all you CAGgers ( hope the terminology is correct