Damn. Just been doing a bit more reading and came up with this. Seems like we can't claim an unfair relationship as our agreement ended in 2006. The introduction of provisions The provisions were introduced by the Consumer Credit Act 2006. They applied to new agreements from 6 April 2007, and to pre-existing agreements from 6 April 2008. Agreements completed before the new provisions took effect remain subject to the previous extortionate credit bargains provisions.

This is what I have just been reading. I would say it covers just about everything. On what basis can a relationship be deemed unfair? Section 140A sets out the criteria for determining whether a relationship is unfair because of one or more of the following: Any of the terms of the agreement or any related agreement; The way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of its rights under the agreement or any related agreement; Anything done or not done by, or on behalf of the creditor. Individuals may bring or defend actions on the basis of the provisions, as well as the OFT having the power to bring an action under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 where there is an unfair relationship which harms the collective interests of consumers. An example of this might be where a lender uses certain terms and conditions in all its agreements which are unfair. What exactly does unfair mean? There is no definition within the provisions themselves. Guidance encourages taking the widest possible view, and it is considered that there is suitable direction in analogous statutory provisions, in particular the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. These regulations, taken with the judgment in Director General of Fair Trading –v- First National Bank (2001) create the proposition that unfairness arises as a result of: Lack of fair and open dealings between the customer and the lender; Failure to give potentially disadvantageous terms sufficient prominence; Deliberately or unconsciously taking advantage of consumers’ necessity, lack of experience, unfamiliarity with the subject matter, weak bargaining position or any other relevant factor; Causing a significant imbalance in parties’ rights and obligations; Acting contrary to good faith; Acting in detriment to the consumer.************

Thank you. I'm just reading about unfair relationships myself and it will give me time to put a few notes together on how best to put my case forward. I will put together (another) letter before action and get it sent to them.

So it looks like I have a choice on whether to claim on Section 56 or 140a? Would I need to also find the relevant sections regarding the deposit and also the commissions?

Wow, that is some reading! I will look at that in more detail when I get home!

Thank you so much for that dx. I had to Google that to turn it into a language that I understood, but now I do it seems like the perfect basis for a claim!

The agreement was regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and it says that on the top of the agreement

Yes they had great delight in telling me that they weren't regulated then as they know then that I can't go to the FOS. I know others are trying to go by the route of the underwriters and then the FOS, but would it be quicker to take them to court and would I have a good chance of winning?

11th April 2002

This is what they had to say about the insurance DAFS provided credit to you in respect of the purchase of a vehicle and merely provided finance to you for the purchase of a payment protection policy (PPI) and other insurances under the agreement. To be clear we were not an agent for you, we were agent for the insurance provider.The supplier (the insurer) is separate from the creditor (DAFS). The insurance part of the agreement was concluded by us on behalf of the insurer with the insurer’s authority and as such the agency was disclosed to your client and DAFS had no obligation to disclose any commission payments as it was not your agent. and this is what it had to say about the deposit We refute the suggestion that the agreement has been incorrectly constructed as a result of the deposit being applied to the wrong agreement. We would point out that the deposit of £1001 provided by you was not subject to an express agreement to offset that deposit against the cost of the vehicle rather than the cost of the PPI.

Thank you postggi. I have attached a sheet showing their commissions in post no 37 of this thread on page 2. It worries me slightly as they have stated in their letter to me that they were an agent for the insurer and not myself, so therefore did not have to disclose any commission to me. Is this true? They also state that with regards to taking the deposit from the insurance, there was no express agreement that they should offset the deposit against the car.

Is it worth me trying the underwriter route first? Has anybody had any success that way? Or should I just go ahead to court? If the underwriter refuses to acknowledge responsibility can it then go to the FOS...and then to court if they can't make them pay up? I know the court route would be quicker, but I need to have a good POC and I'm not having any luck in finding help in that direction so far...

Anybody?

The article 'The Yes Car Nightmare' from This is Money and various review sites from people who have all had the same problem or the Whistleblower programme.

Sorry to butt in but I am in the same position regarding taking them to court. Could misselling be proved by lots of paperwork showing that people were forced to take out the PPI and warranties or would that not stand up in court?

Also they are saying that there was no express agreement to take the deposit from the cost of the car so it was taken from the insurance!

Thanks Andybars. I've posted in the legal forum and hope that somebody can help me soon.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?381105-Yes-Car-Credit-Direct-Auto-Finance-PPI-REclaim(1-Viewing)-nbsp The link above is to my thread on the PPI forum. At the moment I am stuck as I do not understand the complexities of whether or not DAFS had to disclose their commission to me or not. (this is on the last page). I need a valid, legal reason to take this claim to court. Can I claim for an unfair relationship as they did not give me a choice whether or not to take the PPI and the warranties? Thanks Angie

Anybody? I really need to get this letter written so I can sort out my claim.

Ok, I'll do that then. They messed me around so much with the SAR that they gave me my £10 back! They know that both those loans were paid off, because they were paid by other loans in the chain. Even for the other loans they said that they had no information other than what I sent them, but they didn't ask for statements for those! It will cost them enough for those to be referred to the FOS, so they might as well sort it.

Is anyone abe to help regarding my commission question? Did they have to disclose it?

Really? Why on earth do they send it to India? Is that for all the claims, or just the ones that you are querying? I don't need to attach anything to the email do I, just reference the claim number and their comments on the offer letter?

Good idea davsib. I think I will send a letter with my acceptance form giving them one last chance to make me an offer. Theyve admitted that both loans contain PPI, the only reason that they've not upheld them is because they say they have no proof that we didn't cancel the PPI or the amount that was paid. Well they had no proof with any of the others either, only that all the loans were in a chain and each one paid off the previous one. If they haven't got any idea of the amounts that were paid they must have some idea and could make an offer still. If they still refuse I'll send an email to the CEO. It's worth a try before I involve the FOS. I've got the time now that we'll have £18,000! Beware Direct Auto Finance, it will be you next.....

Hi Andybars The acceptance letter only states that we accept full and final settlement with regards to those 3 account numbers. I think I will write to them giving them one last chance to make me an offer on the other 2 before I send them to the FOS. I've got nothing to lose.

Oh sorry dx I just realised. I spent ages deleting all the sensitive info then forgot to save that copy and posted the original! Whoops!