Jump to content

Master Chief

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Master Chief

  1. Beggers belief really. Just out of interest (excuse the pun) what rate do we apply to the spreadsheets to include restitution? Same as we discussed over on my other thread? MC
  2. Maths overload! OK, so we really have to get the details of the second loan and whether there was PPI on that too. Surely the bank wouldn't have sold a second PPI policy, that would be mad! As Arnie says 'I'll be back' Thanks again ims MC
  3. Thanks again ims, I'll have a good read then no doubt come back with a load more questions. MC
  4. Hi, This post is on behalf of a family member, who has been mis-sold PPI on a Barclays personal loan. The story goes that he took out the PPI as he was led to believe that it would help his application, i.e. might not get the loan if he didn't accept it; also he is and was at the time self-employed. Some time into the loan he suffered a bad broken leg, which had complications and meant that he was unable to work for quite some time. He claimed on his PPI and was duly paid for (a maximum) of two months, before they stopped the payments on the basis that his self-employment made him ineligable to claim. He doesn't believe that any premiums or interest were refunded. It gets a little bit more complicated, because a couple of years after the original loan was taken out he borrowed some more, so a new loan was taken out and the old one paid off. I'm not sure if the new loan had any PPI, but he thinks he still has the paperwork available (which I will post up as soon as poss). I've attached the original loan agreement, which refers to terms overleaf, although there is nothing on the reverse. Could I just have some advice on whether he can claim and some pointers on how? Thanks MC RS Agreement 02 Edited.pdf
  5. Excellent. Mine will be going soon, along with a little suprise for the OC Egg. I take the view that while they are being nice to me I shall not rock the boat, but when they start to play silly buggers then I will do likewise. I have in the last few days DSAR'd Egg with a view to starting a charges claim. The original loan was split use (part used to pay an Egg credit card) and there was defo PPI. Back in 2001 when I applied on-line for the loan it was followed immediately with a telephone call regarding why I had not selected the PPI option, I told them because I didn't want it. I then asked the lady if it was a requirement of the loan i.e. will I only get the loan if I accept PPI, to which she responded 'YES'. So I think I have enough to put a big fat spanner in thier works. Why they won't just let sleeping dogs lie, I'll never know. They have to turn the thumb screws even though they have been getting the payments as agreed. Greed I suppose! BTW: I have responded to your PM as requested. All the best with your complaints. MC
  6. Hi ims, Slight issue with the spread sheet, the account number field is not sufficiently large enough to enter a full credit card number so it gets truncated and does not display correctly. As the sheet is protected I can't change it so that it fits. Help please. MC
  7. Ooh ooh I know this one! Yes, the information shown on your CRA file must be correct and factual. That has always been the case, but I think new EU Credit Directive (sorry can't recall the exact name) has clarified who's responsible for keeping your CRA details up to date, which is the assignee (Arrow). I had 1st Crud remove information on Equifax because it was not correct, out of date, and well passed its six year lifespan. Equifax and 1st Crud just complied with my request to have it removed. HTH MC
  8. Wrists summarily slapped. Apologies, just thought the subject matter was different so a new thread was required. Thanks dx (I think)
  9. Thank you again, have copied and will sort everything tomorrow. MC
  10. I'm not greedy, and 24.9% is enough. So if there is a higher chance of success with that, then that is what it shall be. Thanks again ims, would like to add to your rep, but can't anymore til I spead some around. MC
  11. Ok, 24.9% it is as this will clear what I am alleged to owe plus a nice holiday me thinks, might choose somewhere with proper sharks and real teeth for a change I have already SAR'd Citi last year, oh what fun that was. I got the usual treatment and brush offs about them not complying fully 'purged' 'not in a relevant filing system' etc, was pursuing with ICO, but did not follow through due to events at Christmas. Anyhow, the charge remains unexplaind, but as the settlement should be ample I'll leave it out of the claim. "Thanks again ims your a gent and a scholar (assuming that you are indeed male, if not) Who knows!" - You I should hope! Will give 'em 28 as I'm a nice person and I would like Mr/Mrs Judge to think so too! MC
  12. Hi ims, Ok, that sounds reasonable. Restitution at 24.9% it is then. Thanks for the spread sheet, I did download one yesterday from the Barclays success thread which used 29.9%. But am more than happy to be guided by you, so will use the one you provided. Just one further question at this stage, no sorry two, should I include the unexplained £80 (ish) charge that appeared between the final statement balance and the figure on the NOA; I assume it is some sort of file referral/sale charge, but like I say, no information on it as ever been provided. The other question is where does the simple interest at 8% come into it? If I read things correctly, the spreadsheet calculates the restitutuion (compound) and the simple interest is added upon judgement; is that right? Thanks again ims your a gent and a scholar (assuming that you are indeed male, if not) MC Bugger, there was a third question which is why 14 or 28 days to settle? Which is best and why?
  13. Unfortunately, they are copies of statements (single sided) the interest rate is referenced as being on the rear. I have a couple of copies of actual statements found in a bunch of divorce papers, but again no mention of rates on the front; just a note to say that interest rate details on the rear! Just one thing that I would like to clarify if possible. Does the alleged accounts' delinquency have a bearing on a claim? i.e. hypothetically speaking, if you were arguing unjust enrichment, it could be said that this is not true as not all of the charges were actually paid? MC
  14. Hi ims, I read all of the Barclaycard successes yesterday, so I have a rough idea, but of course it is a lot of information to take in in a short space of time. I'll have a read of the other links suggested and come back. BTW: there is an interest rate specified on the recon, but that is a load of crap in any case. I can explain why, but only prepared to do that in a PM for obvious reasons. Thanks again ims, I'm quite looking forward to this. MC
  15. Bloody good question as I only have copy statements and the rate was shown on the rear. Do you remember my previous thread pm's!
  16. Wow, you must be one of those psychics, I'd just PM'd you! Would like to screw them to the wall if at all poss MC
  17. Hi All, As some may know, I currently have a disputed account with 1st Crud in regards of an Associates Credit Card, allegedly applied for by me in 2001. It is currently in dispute on the grounds of CCA s.78 request failure and an incorrect balance claimed. 1st Crud have supplied a laughable attempt at a recon', which they swear blind is a 'TRUE' copy, even though it has more (excuse the pun) flaws than the Empire State! I won't go on, because most of it is covered in another thread. My question here is, can I reclaim the charges on this account some 15 x £20 over the course of a year. Admittedly, they did refund the first 4 charges, but this was charges only and no interest was refunded. The charges are as follows: April 02 to July 02 - 4 x £20 charges- refunded, but charges only. Aug' 02 to Dec' 02 - 5 x £20 charges - not refunded (Dec' 02 shows the last payment made to Associates) Jan' 03 to March 03 - 6 x £20 charges - not refunded (sold to 1st Crud inMarch 03) Additionally, upon sale of the account to 1st Crud the balance increased by around a further £80, but as yet there has been no explanation for this despite DSAR's to both OC and DCA. What if anything can I claim? Cheers, MC
  18. Sorry, my bad, I completely forgot about Windows 7 Mobile. Have you tried scanning codes on packaging etc. just to confirm that it is the app' and not the codes your trying to read. Edit: Ignore me, I'm being stupid, I missed that you had already tried scanning other stuff DOH! When I use my phone to scan the paperwork I have, it gives my reference number. Yes, that thread is well worth a read, I was originally pointed in its direction by coledog.
  19. Firstly, re: the scanner app', it might be that the quality of the bar code is too poor to work if it is a bad copy. Try scanning a code from a packet and see if that works. If not, your HTC runs on android so try the QR Droid app' as i know that to work well. Re: Your second question: In post #481 count orlock asked "Does this also apply to pre 2007 agreements, and if so what about the case law that was used before?" And I believe that was in response to a previous post that said 1st Crud were seeking judgments with recon's alone i.e. not the original executed agreements. Rather than try to explain it and get it wrong, have a look at post #1 here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?314597-Challenging-Reconstituted-Agreements HTH MC
  20. Hi newman, I have an android phone and use QR Droid, free from the market place. It is really very good and great fun too! MC
  21. Hi count, good question is 127 (3) now null and void????? newman, sorry if this is a stupid question, but does your alleged agreement fall under the protection of the CCA 1974 127 (3) or is yours post repeal? MC
  22. Hi Newman, Do you have a smartphone with a barcode scanner app'? Wouldn't mind betting both of those barcodes show your 1st Crud reference number. If they do, why would Citi be quoting 1st cruds reference? Like I say, might not be relevant.
  23. I have just been re-reading this thread and something that I noticed, which may be relevant or not, I would say both of those NOA docs have been printed by 1st Crud using Citi header & footer. Maybe something, maybe be completely irrelevant, but maybe not. MC
  • Create New...