If it was then I can guarantee 100% that it was not attached to the finance agreement in any way. The PPI on these agreements, if it was indeed taken up, was added to the normal monthly payments and taken as one total sum, e.g. if the monthly finance payment was £200 and the PPI payment was £30, the total sum of £230 would have been taken each month by direct debit. I've had my own experience with First National, so I know this to be absolutely true. What is the monthly finance payment on the agreement document (I can't make it out)? Does it differ from the normal monthly payments on bank statements? If it doesn't - no PPI.

Right, got you I dunno, I'd still be wary though, if it were me. That "I'm for the defendant..." statement could be interpreted by the other side as bias before the case had even been heard - just be careful it doesn't turn around and bite you on the butt!!!

That's a double-edged sword, though, surely. Isn't justice meant to to be a process where all the evidence and mitigating circumstances, from both sides, is heard before an impartial person? And isn't that person only meant to base their decision on what they have heard after they have heard all the evidence? Any judge who said that about a case I was involved in would make me nervous, even if they were on my side. Too much chance for the other side to call foul. I would want to win fair and square because I was right, not because it was a foregone conclusion regardless of the facts.

MG are a manufacturer, not a finance company, so that fact that they went bust is neither here nor there. Finance for MG was provided by First National Motor Finance trading as MG Rover Financial Services. First National stopped trading in 2003 and closed completely in 2008 or 9. All the loans that were still open at this time were sold to Close Credit Management. This is who their client would be, and who you should direct any further SARs to.

The car should be in your name regardless of the type of agreement you have. Best to check your documents and be sure what type it is.

It depends on what type of agreement you have. If you have a conditional sale or conditional sale type agreement (by that I mean HP, Personal Contract Purchase and the like), you can't sell it without paying it off first as it's not technically your car. If you have a fixed sum loan agreement, or credit agreement, then the car is yours and you can do what you want with it. Check the terms of your agreement first before you do anything.

With the absolute greatest of respect, you've made the assumption that Santander can't have taken your enquiry as a serious request, but very clearly they have - the phone call and letter you received confirms this. What more proof do you need? Phone them as soon as you can and get this cleared up. You can get all the advice you want from here, but you're still going to be in the same situation until the people at Santander know that they've made a mistake and are given the opportunity to put it right.

Hi I work for a motor finance company – any mods or admin who want to know more about my background please contact me. In this situation the innocent purchaser is protected by statute and has good title to the car. The relevant legislation can be found here - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1964/cukpga_19640053_en_1 - in the Hire Purchase Act 1964 c53 s27(2). This Act has since been absorbed by the Consumer Credit Act 2006 c39 s192, but is still valid today. The relevant part reads as follows: 27 Protection of purchasers of motor vehicles (1)This section applies where a motor vehicle has been bailed or (in Scotland) hired under a hire-purchase agreement, or has been agreed to be sold under a conditional sale agreement, and, before the property in the vehicle has become vested in the debtor, he disposes of the vehicle to another person. (2)Where the disposition referred to in subsection (1) above is to a private purchaser, and he is a purchaser of the motor vehicle in good faith without notice of the hire-purchase or conditional sale agreement (the “relevant agreement”) that disposition shall have effect as if the creditor’s title to the vehicle has been vested in the debtor immediately before that disposition. In layman’s terms, it basically states that if an innocent purchaser buys a car that is still subject to a finance agreement, they get good title. There is nothing the finance company can do about it – they cannot ask the new owner to pay nor can they repossess the car. Their only recourse is with their customer. They might want to know more details about the sale, but after that the should take the new owner out of the loop. I’m not sure about who should receive the insurance payout, but logic dictates that as the OP has good title, it should go to them. Don’t quote me on that, though, as my background is in finance and the associated Acts, and experience tells me that the law isn’t always logical. A quick call to the Insurance Ombudsman should clarify the situation.