Jump to content

skeptic

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Excellent

1 Follower

About skeptic

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I thought the Defendant's solicitors had agreed an informal 14 day extension of time and that there had been no Court Order about this. If so, hold fire, even if it theoretically runs out today. There's very little they can do in any event and they won't be able to do anything at all, until next week. A bit of a day isn't realistically long enough for me to sort everything out. I've been working on this for about 5 hours since my last post and I'm only about half way there still... I think it'll be worth the wait.
  2. As I understand it the FOS have indicated that the Broker will be repaying the whole of the PPI + the interest on the premiums + 8% and based on the figures in your first post and this equates to somewhere around 15.4K (using the very round figures of 10K PPI, + 3K interest charged (3yrs @ 10%) + 2.4K interest lost (3yrs @ 8%)). Judging by the interest rate and total cost of the interest on the PPI (over the lifetime of the loan), this is: A very expensive loan (by current secured loan rates) A loan which runs over a long time In the circumstances, I can see where both you and
  3. Super, Dealing with the easy bits, first This was what I was talking about. It looks like a CCA application form. However, I've now noticed that the title of the image suggests that it is not connected to the current lender. Am I right? No. See my post of 30 Jan 09. I will do... and I'll try and get them to you sooner rather than later, given the time pressure you're now under. However, in the meantime, can I ask you to go back thru the whole of this thread and re-read it a couple of times. If you do, I'm sure, that you'll find that there are
  4. This raises the question of whether or not the solicitor was actually retained at any point to provide you with any advice. No retainer = No solicitor/client relationship = No duty of care = No negligence. What normally happens in cases like this is that the Bank writes to the solicitor and creates a retainer to advise the prospective Guarantor in relation to the PG. The letter of instruction is clear, unambiguous and sets out both who will pay for the solicitor's services (usually the Borrower) and that the solicitor should contact the Bank if he or she is unable to act for any reas
  5. This is a normal part of the Litigation process, and shouldn't be used to draw any inferences as to the Bank's intentions, positive or negative. I agree with x20 that there are many questions to be answered about the "independent" legal advice that you received before signing the PG. However, one thing that does not appear to have been addressed in this thread explicitly, is whether or not the solicitor actually advised to sign the PG or not to sign the PG. The reason I raise this is because ordinarily I would have expected you to have had a letter from the solicitor that you s
  6. Because, it's an easy get out from the Data Controller's point of view... If they argue that they have been unable to confirm a Data Subject's identity, they can argue that they are not (yet) in breach of the 40 day time limit.
  7. The 40 day time limit starts on the date the Bank received your Subject Access Request, provided you have given them the information they need to find your data and offered payment. They want you to phone them so: They can ask you what the reason for your enquiry is. They can try to get you to ask for some specific documents They can ask you for more time to comply with your request. There is no obligation on you to provide a reason for your request... all you'd be doing by telling them would be to give them on advance notice of your intentions. There is
  8. My example was only intended to illustrate the point, I was making in the paragraph that preceeded it. The only reason I did not include figures for interest as separate elements was to keep the maths as simple as possible. Perhaps my point would have been clearer, if I had said I agree with you, that in the real world, the injustice of mis-sold PPI is exacerbated by the interest charged (and lost) on the premiums. However, I don't think this detracts from the tenor of my earlier post. If parties contract on a lawful basis, the Courts will, first and foremost look
  9. As a kindred spirit, I would be very grateful if you could post a link to the CAP1 policy document and or the applicable T&C's... because a person I'm helping needs to refer to them, but part of their mis-selling claim arises from the fact that they were never sent them. As you can imagine getting them out of CAP1 now is about as likely as Judy Finnigan being cast as Lara Croft in the next Tomb Raider movie... Tomb Raider: Sofa of Mogadon TIA
  10. Oh, and the Limitation clock is ticking loudly... so you may need to factor that in.
  11. From what you say, it seems clear that you were mis-sold (at least) the PPI. However, your options for pursuing this now seem to depend on the exact terms of the settlement you previously reached with GoDebt... You said: ...so there was obviously a considerable advantage to you in the settlement. What I would question is whether or not the settlement, either expressly or by action of law, constrains you from now pursuing the some or all of the PPI claim. Did either party have the benefit of legal advice when the settlement was negotiated? Was it expressly in fu
  12. That has to be helpful. Business Loan Repayment Insurance BLRI Hmmmm, "Business Loan Repayment Insurance" sounds like PPI by another name, but (and I think its a pretty big but, in your case) as this was a Business to Business transaction most, if not all, of the arguments usually made in relation to the mis-selling of PPI just do not apply. In normal PPI claims, the sale is business to consumer, and the legal basis for the claims arising from mis-selling, largely (but not exclusively) depend on protections afforded to consumers. Unfortunately, these protections ar
  13. No. Car's explanation is correct. The rule states: 15.4 (1) The general rule is that the period for filing a defence is – (a) 14 days after service of the particulars of claim; or (b) if the defendant files an acknowledgment of service under Part 10, 28 days after service of the particulars of claim. The point I was trying to make is that when the claim was issued the Court will have determined a deemed date of service; whereas the Defendant's Acknowledgement of Service will state the actual date of service... which may be different from the deemed date... and
  14. Planning ahead is always a good idea... but you don't need to be worrying about Court bundles yet. Any trial date is a long way off. Lots of people have been to Court; but PPI claims are, by their very nature a different kettle of coconuts from the easy win, bank charges claims of a couple of years ago. Every PPI claim will turn on its own facts. Therefore, the onus on the Claimant to plead the law (that is relevant to their particular claim) correctly and susequently meet the evidential burden of proof on the facts, is not inconsiderable. There is very little worthwhile y
  15. Time limits for filing a Defence: CPR 15.4 14 days from the date of (deemed) Service of the Proceedings; unless they enter an Acknowledgement of Service, then its 28 days and runs from the date of (actual) Service of the Proceedings as per the Acknowledgement.
×
×
  • Create New...