Hi again, I am not a legal person and therefore can only help with the circumstances of the PPI claim you made. However, if you click the red triangle at the bottom of this page it will bring your questions to the attention of a member of the site team who have a lot more knowledge than me on the further issues you raise. Hope this is of help. Kind Regards PH

Ooops sorry about the above post, pressed the wrong button. As stated my friend was in reciept of income support. When her claim was closed (not suspended) on the grounds of alleged co habitation she spent months asking on what grounds the claim was closed. It was not until a LSC solicitor wrote to the DWP on the alleged co habitation that a reason was given. The solicitor put in a late appeal on her behalf which has now been accepted and the DWP is currently investigating this separate issue. My friend then attended the Atos medical, (then made a new claim the day after her medical) and was subsequently told that she had failed the medical and then this new claim was also closed. As previously stated it seems wrong to me that she was asked to attend an Atos medical when she was not in reciept of any benefits.

Hi again, She has DWP correspondence to confirm that up to October 2009 she was claiming income support, made up of a payment of income support, plus an additional payment because she was sick or disabed. In O

Hi, a friend of mine has been claiming incapacity benefit since 2007, and in October 2009 her benefit was stop'd and the claim closed as a result of a separate issue of alleged co habitation. She was subsequently requested to attend a 'Personal Incapacity Assessment' on 9th December 2009, and on 10th December 2009 she made a new claim for benefit. The point is, when she attended the Medical on 9th December 2009 she was NOT in reciept of any benefits / niether had she put in a new claim for benefits / or at that time appealed the closed claim. This seems wrong to me. Can anyone please advise if the DWP and ATOS are allowed to do this (ask a person to attend a medical when NOT in reciept of benefits). If they are not, can anyone please advise of the relevant law which states a claiment must be in reciept of benefits when they attend a Medical Thanks in advance.

Just a quick one, a friend of my has been claiming incapacity benefit since 2007, in october 2009 the claim was closed due to a separate issue of her allegedly co habiting. On 9 December 2009 she was required to attend an Atos Madical and then on 10 December she started a new claim. The point is, she was NOT in reciept of any benefit when she was required to attend the 'Personal Incapacity Assessment', this appears wrong to me. Can the DWP do this? and if not, what is the relevant law.

Hi again Landy It looks to me that you have got them by the 'nuts' mate. They admit that a substantial part of the commission ellement was a fee, therefore a charge for credit, and as other more knowlegable caggers will confirm to include a charge for credit, in total credit, is a no no. Hope this is of help PH

Hi Landy Be obliged if you would clarify what recent case law Swift lawyers are refering to in this regard. Kind Regards PH

I agree, sending a S.A.R.N to GE will result in there SendAny Rubbish Now policy. In my case I sent in my S.A.R.N request (for an expired loan) and GE sent me a pile of usless informaton but NObroker /packer documentation, I wrote back explaining this and no reply was the answer, after 60 days (not 40) I asked a solicitor to follow up and write to GE, again no reply was the answer, I paid for counsels opinion who came up with the answer 'you are reliant on GE being honest and forthwright in providing the broker / packager documentation (ha ha fall off the chair) however if GE contend they no longer have the documentation there is not an awful lot we can do about it'. Writing direct to the Broker appears to be the answer ( unfortunately in my case he went bust some time age.)

Yes it should, however as a Barrister told me if GE say they no longer have the document, there is not a lot you can do about it. amazin.

Maybe a bit thick - can anyone tell me the difference between negligence and fraud in relation to section 32 of the limitation act.

Hi, is the limitation period for breach of 'fiducary duty' (secret commission) 6 years from the date that the credit agreement was entered into, as there appears to be no limitation period in the statute book. Or is the limitation period extended to 15 years for concealment ( the banks never thought we would find out) or 15 years for a special category of fraud where it is unnecssary to prove motive. Or, does the limitation period run from the date that the concelment or fraud was discovered. Very confusing.

Thanks citizen B, will do. Bit of a newbie on this site, thanks for you guidance.

Thanks for your input citizen B, however my concern is that in his judgement of 29th January 2009 (Heath v Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited, which supersedes existing threads), HHJ Purle QC having considered the language of section 18 concluded 'that in this case the mortgage could not be separated into 2 parts without affecting its central character, which was to make one advance, not two'. As this case will have massive implications for borrowers when arguing 'multiple agreements' in future. It has to be asked, do the existing threads on 'multiple agreements' still hold?

I am wondering if the section on unenforceable multiple credit agreements still holds, as it appears that lenders are now relying on recent judicial attention to section 18 in the High Court (as opposed to a county court) in the case of Heath and Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited (Neutral Citation No: [2009] EWHC 103 (Ch) In my case, I raised concerns with a former sub prime lender on a multiple agreement under section 18 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ( a £10,000 loan and a £984 PPI, total loan £10,984, taken out on a second charge in the 1990s). The prescribed terms for the loan (for unrestricted use credit) were listed on the agreement, and a PPI premium advance (for restricted use credit) was also listed on the agreement, without the required separate prescribed terms or signature on the one document, and the monthly repayments were 'lumped' together. The lender rejects that the loan was improperly executed and therefore unenforceable, apparently based on this recent High Court case, Heath v Southern Pacific. I am not a legal person and would appreciate any views on the matter