Jump to content

ims21

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    26,003
  • Avg. Content Per Day

    8.7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

ims21 last won the day on May 31 2014

ims21 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,046 Excellent

About ims21

  • Rank
    Royalties Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Eh? Not sure what you are after. Have you looked at the cases in the PPI forum? If not then that is the area to be reading.
  2. In answer to your question, there are many people who have had PPI added to their account(s) without their knowledge or consent, hence the huge bill for redress which the banking industry faces. There are many stories in the CAG PPI forums which bear testament to this. Sadly there have been no criminal investigations into this matter (as far as I am aware) and certainly no criminal proceedings brought against any corporate body. This all comes under the banner of a civil matter rather than criminal until and unless such a time comes when the authorities decide to prosecute for a crime. In the meantime people will and should continue to get their reclaims in to get their money and appropriate compensation back.
  3. Can you please answer the questions raised in this post please.... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?419198-You-have-received-a-Claim-What-you-need-to-do.-**UPDATED-December-2014**(1-Viewing)-nbsp Please provide the answers here on your thread and the legal guys will be along to help.
  4. There has been much debate on whether a SAR will yield an agreement. I have to say that some lenders will provide it with a SAR, others won't. One outfit that I was involved with did send me a photocopy of the signed agreement from 1989/90 as part of my SAR.
  5. If you stop paying I would certainly put the money aside somewhere so that if they do eventually come up with the goods and can enforce then at least you will have the wherewithall to pay. You need to decide what your actual goal is. If the debt is legitimate, you had the money and used it and have been repaying for a period of 6 years then why not repay the rest? Are there any penalty charges or PPI that you could reclaim? I think there is a letter in the library to ask the lender to confirm whether they do actually hold a signed copy of the agreement...you could send that. Please bear in mind that we are not about debt avoidance but by all means go through the process to establish the veracity of the debt.
  6. Lenders sell debts for a number of reasons. Maybe they think the debt is going to go bad so they off-load it to someone else and get at least something back for it leaving the debt purchaser with the potential headache of collection. Another reason is that they may want to make their overall balance sheet look healthier by getting rid of some toxic debt. It may be that they know they have an unenforceable debt on their hands and palm it off to someone else. Hoist will need to come up with the appropriate documentation to be able to enforce, whether this a recon for April 2007 accounts onwards or a copy of the original signed agreement for dates prior to that. For the overdraft there should be a copy of the overdraft agreement/advice letter produced. Evidence of the usage of the facility would also go in their favour. If it were me, for the sake of a couple of quid, I would send CCA requests for the appropriate accounts to the new owner, perhaps include a paragraph to the effect that the original owner has thus far not complied with previous requests. Failure to provide relevant documents under a S77/78 request carries no sanction other than failure to comply means it is unenforceable in court until they do comply.
  7. They are correct...they do not need to provide you with a copy of the signed original under the provisions of The Act. Being pre April 2007 they would need it though if they were going to try and enforce through the courts.
  8. Hi If your neighbour paid the account off in most months then the redress is likely to be fairly low I would guess. The reason being is the the PPI would have been there to protect a balance on the account. If there was no balance then there would not have been a PPI premium in that month a there was nothing to protect if you see what I mean. I understand that employers such as the NHS offered very generous sickness/redundancy and other packages included in the contract of employment and they generally rendered a lender's PPI as pretty much useless. I think the reasons for your claim should revolve around this aspect. The savings aspect is a bit less important but still valid. Most PPI policies would have paid out for six months but if someone had savings which may have covered six months or more then it adds grist to the mill so to speak. Sadly some on here are to be taken with a pinch of salt and you seem to be a wise owl who can pick up on those. If such people were to have been believed in the days of bank charges reclaims then CAG would not be here today. As you have been here since 2006 you will know what I mean when I say it was only due to some who fought for what was right that CAG is here and, although a relative late comer myself, I am proud to be part of this group which has helped bring the banks and other institutions to book and repay their victims the sums of money which they took from them unlawfully, immorally, unfairly and by any other means which they thought fit in order to line their own pockets.
  9. Hi weej Stand back a little from this and consider things. Re the PPI you need to have a valid reason for a mis-sell. You stated earlier that..."they did not need, would never have needed, never made a claim and basically didn't question anything and can't even remember this being an option" The question is "why did they not need it and would never have needed it"? the statement "Never made a claim" is not valid unless I have misunderstood you. PPI claims are not the same as charges reclaims, the main reason being that the regulatory bodies that are (and have been in the past) have sorted out redress schemes for PPI redress. They have not done similar for charges claims. Now, if you put in a standard claim for mis-selling of PPI there is are set criteria for what redress would be given if the complaint is upheld. This comprises the following... 1 -> a refund of the PPI premiums charged to the account 2 -> a refund of any contractual interest charged to the account as a result of those premiums 3 -> the account should be reconstructed with the above removed. If the reconstructed account shows that the account would have been in credit for any month then 8% simple interest is awarded on that credit balance for that month. 4 -> if the account was paid off and closed then there will be a difference between the amount paid and the reconstructed balance at the time of settlement. 8% simple would be awarded on that difference running from the date of payment to the date of settlement of the claim. 5 -> if there were any charges applied to the account which were triggered purely as a result of the above PPI then they should be refunded too along with any contractual interest charged on them and the 8% calculation as mentioned above. To work all of that out you would need to do some work if you are going to try and get to a figure which is anywhere near correct. Don't forget, the banks are not on your side and may well try to stiff you again on any redress they offer. For example, they will almost certainly leave out any charges which were triggered by the mis-sale of PPI. As regards interest rates, I believe this is covered in my description above....you should get back any contractual interest charged as a result of the mis-sold PPI. That means it is the rate they charged the customer. It is not pure compound as much depends on the behaviour of the account. Now, if you want to go for other charges i.e. those which are unconnected with the PPI debacle, there is a different route to take and it may be wise to start a new thread on this subject.
  10. Hi The age of the account and the credit limit are not directly linked to the amount of redress for PPI on a credit card. It is the behaviour of the account which is the important factor. The redress figure should comprise the following... 1 -> All premiums charged to the account 2 -> Any contractual interest charged to the account as a result of those premiums. 3 -> The account should be reconstructed with the above removed. If the reconstruction shows that for any month the account would have been in credit then 8% simple interest is awarded on that credit balance for that month. 4 -> If the account was paid off and closed there will be a difference between the amount actually paid off and the final balance on the reconstruction. 8% simple will be paid on that difference running from the date of the payment to the date of settlement of the claim. 5 -> Any redress offer should also contain a refund of any charges which were charged to the account which were triggered by the above, together with any contractual interest on them plus any 8% simple on an increased credit balance as described above plus any 8% on the reconstructed balance difference too. It will be impossible for anyone to tell you whether their offer is right or wrong unless they have access to ALL of the statements.
  11. Gently please chaps....if there is evidence to this effect then please link to it. Thanks
  12. It is very, very unlikely that you will get the deed. The deed will contain hundreds, perhaps thousands, maybe tens of thousands of accounts that were assigned under that deed A notice of assignment is all that is needed to be sent to the debtor in accordance with the Act.
  13. Hi Andrew and welcome to CAG As you say, if they have no documentation then this is unenforceable in court. When was the account taken out? If before April 2007 then they would need the original to enforce but if after that date then they may be able to rely on reconstituted documents to enforce. Regardless of that, there is of course still a debt due and there is still a moral obligation to pay. If they say they cannot enforce then it would be interesting to see what "further action" they intend to take.
  14. Another spanking for Lloyds.... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?419990-Lloyds-PPI-reclaim-***-SUCCESS-***
  15. Well done...nice one just before Christmas. Have changed your thread title and added you to the PPI success thread too.
×
×
  • Create New...