Jump to content

xboxer

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    228
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by xboxer

  1. Hi everyone, Happy New Year Ok , so new year new challange. I have started to challange our CT as we live in a 3 bed semi with us being band B and next door band A! In our street there are 5 styles of houses, with my style being the largest, all of the other houses are band A. Nine houses the same as ours, including next door, have succesfully been re banded to A. We have just had our informal enquiry rejected by the VOA (template excuses). I am about to reply to the VOA having done my own investigation. These are my findings. 1. There were no houses the same as ours sold in our street in 1991. Saturday spent in the library on microfiche, only found 1 in November 1990 for £42k (Front porch extension and larger plot of land) 2. The VOA have already rectified 9 houses indentical to ours. 3. Using an OS map to work out plot size, we have the smallest plot of land in the street. One house has 60% more land than us and was lowered to an A. 4. We have a public access at the side of our to a council garage block. 5. The house with the largest plot is the first house in the street with that style so I think we have all been valued based on that one. If you just glance at our house it's possible to mistake the access road as our driveway. I think these are all valid points as to why ours should be lowered also to band A. My wife has lived here since 1997, so we can't formally appeal, but reading through the VOA employee toolkit it states that if anyone who becomes liable for CT has 6 months to appeal. Well my wife is the only liable just now, if I was to become liable does this then mean I can formally appeal?What to people think, do I have a strong case?
  2. A SAR would probably be best, that would also give you the "information and evidence" Lloyds used in during the investigation. The one page with the PPI figures on is that a copy of your credit agreement?
  3. Hi levirocks, your letter sounds very similar to the ones I received from BlackHorse who initially rejected my claims, for me it was a case of letter ping pong using their findings against them. If you applied over the phone does that mean you received your agreement pre-filled and you just had to sign where indicated? Did your agreement state the PPI was optional, show the overall cost of the PPI? Were you told you could cancel the PPI? Lloyds mentioned that you had no other means in place at the time to pay the loan, hence the PPI, did they have a Needs and Demands questionnaire? They have made no mention of taking this to the FOS, someone correct me if I'm wrong but I thought if they were GISC members then the FOS can still investigate. The best thing is don't give up at the first hurdle it's what Lloyds wants.
  4. Hi Ali, I had the same problem working out their calculations all fine until the final loan and supposed rebate. I would of kept arguing for the balance to match my calculations but took their offer instead as it's going to get our new kitchen. What percentage is their offer compared to your calculations? My final offer was about 87.5% of my calculations.
  5. Morning all J, Well I received my cheque yesterday and have now put it in my account, so I suppose I can now class this as a WIN!!!!!!
  6. Thanks Ali, it has been a long time coming but hopefully finally there. I've been told to expect my cheque within the next 10 days. Well this is how they treated mine but in their latest letter have told me I CAN refer my complaint to the FOS, so go figure lol.
  7. Afternoon everyone, So once again I find myself updating this thread! This time though it's a positive!! After trying a slightly different but simplistic method and NOT using the FOS or going through court, BH have finally come back with an offer of almost £7K. Whilst this is about £800 less than my calculations I will be accepting this offer. Once I have the cheque and it has been cashed then I will fully update the thread. My oldest claim was on a loan taken out 15 years ago!
  8. I think I have the answer to the CCJ, the court date of the original judgement was Dec 05. So even though it wasn't paid (satisfied) until March 06 it would be six years from Dec 05 NOT six years from March 06.
  9. Morning everyone, First off, Happy New Year to all the CAGGERS! Right so life has kind of gotten in the way the last couple of months and this was moved down my list of priorities. Well no the New Year is here and I'll not be doing much socializing during January I've got plenty of time to get back on this. Decided to check my credit file this morning with credit expert and lo and behold the BH CCJ has disappeared! I had last check mid December and it was there. The CCJ was paid off in full in March 06, although BH had recorded it as May 06, so it should still be there. Now I have in my correspondences to BH stated that I expect to removal of the CCJ as per FOS guidelines but have had no positive response to that request. They in fact stated that they were aware the date was wrong and would not be changing it. So just wondering if there is a way I can see how / why the CCJ has gone?
  10. Another day, another letter, more incompetence!! Decided to email the CEO due to the mistakes BH made in my offer and got a reply from a supposed BH exec. Time for another game of count the mistakes. 2 identical letters in the same envelope, date of the email wrong by 6 days and different figures for the first loan. This is before I get to the content of the letter and their "findings". Insisting they did not break the FSA guidelines (despite me including a scan of the postmarked envelope with the email), after doing another thorough investigation still saying no mis-selling, the mistake with my final loan was the "wrong calculator being used" and have offered about an extra £500. So I decided to phone (RECORDED) the BH exec and see what was going on. Despite me including and stating the attachment was my main complaint and the email was a brief overview / cover letter they apparently read it then only answered the email. I had to push and push to get an answer about what they investigated as there is no longer any records from the point of sale, turns out the "thorough" investigation is………checking my age at the time and my employment!!! With this they feel I was eligible so couldn't have been mis-sold. Also I signed the agreement. That is all they have done for the investigation. Completely laughable and contemptuous. Went around in circles for a couple of minutes whilst they kept saying "but you signed the agreement", if it was as simple as that there would be no mis-selling scandal. On the basis of this "investigation" and "evidence" I obviously want to progress this further. The problem I have is FOS will probably have to go after the underwriters as it's pre 2005 but will take ages to get a result. Not to sure how strong of a case I would have if I go court route? Thoughts anyone?
  11. Hi stuscfc, The other favorite tactic of BH seems to be that they will say there was no mis-selling but didn't offer a pro rata rebate when the loan was paid off early or consolidated. So they then offer you the difference of the pro rata rebate and what you got at the time. That's what they have tried with me and even got the status of one of my loans completely wrong so reducing their already pathetic offer further. Have you done your Schedule Of Claim (SOC) as I noticed you said in your first post that the loan was refinanced? You will still be paying loan 1 PPI in loan 2. Also BH will most probably wait the full 16 weeks before sending you their response, they did this with me and I got their response after the 16 weeks, so keep an eye on the dates.
  12. Also with the claim again I think so long as the claim without interest is below £5000 then small claims is where you go. You would be asking the judge to consider interest in restitution instead of simple. If I'm wrong then someone will hopefully correct me.
  13. Hi Master Chief, I believe that the 8% stat interest is simple interest whereas the CI sheet is compound interest. So putting the 8% into the CI sheet would be giving you compounded interest instead of simple hence the higher figure.
  14. Morning All, Ok I got home last night and my letter was waiting for me. The envelope was dated the 3rd October 2011, so posted on the last day of the 16 week extension and I have received it after and not within the 16 week period. So they have gone against the FSA before I even read it! Having read through it and then again BH has once again managed to surprise me with their incompetence! They are satisfied that after checking my eligibility and suitability of the policy, provided me with the appropriate information and ensured that they acted fairly towards me and taking into account any other relevant circumstances or information that may be available, that the only issue is with me receiving a non pro rata rebate when paying the loan off early! They also told me I couldn't go to the FOS and had to go to the FLA but included a FOS handbook! I was half expecting this but then it gets even better! My last loan that was fully paid off in 2006 because they got a CCJ then subsequent charging order, they have listed it as a live loan with arrears! So have also deducted the arrears from the pathetic offer. Additionally even though the ppi on that loan ran for less than half the policy I have no rebate for that loan. I have been offered about £900 where it should be about £7500, about 13% of my claim! Now as I have said before they included a copy of my ID and bank statements (with hand written annotations on it) with my SAR but no information about how they judged ppi to be suitable makes me wonder what evidence they could be using as none seems to exist? This is something I shall be asking them! As far as I'm concerned now that have admitted liability for one part and their continued inability to follow processes and read the information available, it shows that all my complaints are valid!
  15. Morning All, Still hadn't heard anything this morning, 16 weeks and 2 days since they signed for my claims, so decided to phone (recorded) BH. The PPI dedicated number goes through to the Edinburgh call centre now and they don't have access to old accounts. They are given 2 extensions numbers on a daily basis that they can use to contact the PPI claims department (not a public facing department). So gave my 3 agreement numbers and was put on hold for a couple of minutes. Apparently all 3 of my claims were reviewed last week and passed to the auditing department for them to review the calculations. This takes 2 -3 days then letters detailing my REFUNDS are sent out my second class post. I should have the letters by the end of this week or the beginning of next week. The call centre person couldn't give me any details of the refunds, as in amounts or full or partial offer, as they are I quote "actively discouraged from doing this" I have read other people stating BH offering back the difference of the rebate when consolidating their loans and dismissing the rest of the claim. So I now wait with baited breath to see what they offer. Either way it's a positive step in the right direction. BTW all 3 claims are pre 2005.
  16. Just spoke to the FOS and explained the still no response from BH. Yes I should of received BH's response within the 16 week period. So long as I have proof that it has been 16 weeks since BH received my claims then the FOS can take over if I want them to. I did state who it was and the claims are pre-2005 and they didn't seem bothered about that. Told them I will wait a couple of days in case of postal delay and see what BH come back with before I decide my next step.
  17. Hi Ali, if your SAR turns up like mine i.e. NO archived internal notes on PPI and matching customers requirements to the product (even the FLA state this!) but archived my ID and bank statements, then I don't know how they could reject a claim with no evidence! But I have always been a glass half full person.
  18. Morning All, Well it's now the 3rd of October and 16 weeks (112 days) since BH signed for the delivery of my 3 claims (they were all in the same envelope) and still no decision! So looks like I have not been told their decision WITHIN 16 weeks, so depending on the outcome their failure to adhere to FSA guidelines will be raised!
  19. Excuse my ramblings as thoughts come into my head lol, but would this mean CT/BH were acting as brokers for the PPI? If so are there any common law principals that can be quoted?
  20. Ok managed to answer my own question lol http://www.out-law.com/page-10509 The guidance applies to complaints about the sale of all types of PPI contract, whatever the basis on which it was sold and irrespective of whether the policy is still in force, was cancelled during the policy term or ran its full term (DISP App 3.1.1G). For banks and insurers, the new regime covers complaints about PPI sales going back to 1st December 2001. Brokers and intermediaries, however, have only been subject to FSA regulation since 14th January 2005. The FSA has confirmed that DISP applies to complaints against intermediaries about earlier sales if the intermediary was a member of the General Insurance Standards Council (GISC) at the time of the sale and the subject matter was covered by its rules. Although the GISC code did not include many of the more detailed provisions now found in ICOBS, the FSA is satisfied that its general principles are sufficiently similar to those in the Handbook. Sections in the final amended DISP text that have been given the status of "evidential provisions" will, however, only apply as guidance to complaints about pre-2005 sales (DISP App 3.10). Guidance is illustrative, but not binding, whereas compliance with an evidential provision will be taken as evidence that the firm has complied with FSA requirements. For non-GISC sales (which would be outside the scope of DISP), complainants have to rely on common law principles, such as negligence or (where the broker was acting as agent of the insurer) the duty of utmost good faith or the general law on misrepresentation. Might be of some help to the Chartered Trust/Black Horse pre-2005 PPI claims, where by they seem to be gloating that the FOS can't investigate. Upon investigating my ppi documents that came with my SAR, it states that Financial Insurance Company Limited were the underwriters of the PPI and THEY were GISC members. Before 2001 (Chartered Trust) they quote compaining to ABI. Also Financial Insurance Company Limited looking on the FSA Register have been FSA regulated since 2001. Hope this helps!
  21. I have heard it mentioned that the FOS will investigate a pre-2005 PPI claim IF the company in question was a member of ABI or GISC. Is there any truth in this?
  22. Morning All, Just an update on the saga so far…. Well still heard nothing yet and the 16 weeks are up on the 3rd October 2011. I gave them a phone (recorded) on the 12th September to chase it up, was told after being on hold for 5 minutes that no decision has been reached yet but should hear within the next 2 weeks. Told them that the 16 weeks would soon be up and asked them what date they had for the deadline. They tried to pass off the deadline by saying "if you presume each month has 4 weeks then the 16 weeks will be up on 13th October". I then had to remind them that it is exactly 16 weeks so the date should 3rd October 2011. So not only do BH seem to have done anything yet but they don't seem to even record the deadline dates on their systems, although I shouldn't be surprised at this. I take it they should be contacting me within the 16 week period and not sending a letter out on the 7th day on the 15th week? Not exactly filled with confidence that we're not reading any Blackhorse success stories, do they exist? The only plus side is that while trying to get by charges back (now with the FOS) the Compliance & Risk Executive at BH has admitted in writing that they hold NO notes for my running of the accounts on their system. Also with the SAR they sent copies of my bank statements and passport that were used for ID purposes when taking out the loans with no sign of any internal notes relating to needs analysis or questionnaires relating to PPI. Will be interesting to see if/how they reject my claims.
  23. Afternoon All, I'm currently working on a PPI claim for a friend against Cap 1. SAR has been sent off but while we're waiting I have been going through the statements they do have. I have come across an anomaly that I haven't heard mentioned before with PPI. The account had a £200 credit limit and on the statement I was looking at had over limit charges bringing the card balance to £460. It looks like the PPI premium that month (£3.62) was based upon the total card balance (£460). As PPI would only pay your minimum payments, shouldn't it of been a case of the PPI premium being based upon the card balance minus penalty charges, as in the £200 credit limit? The account was fully paid around 2008 and had some charges reimbursed in 2006/7 but this will also be looked at closely when the SAR comes back. As usual thanks in advance.
×
×
  • Create New...