Is it worth sending the other 2 loans to the FOS? These loans were paid off by others, so the PPI wasn't cancelled at all. They say as they have no info that they cannot calculate the amount of the refund.

Offer is now attached. Just realised that the breakdown isn't that clear so I will post it here: Loan 2 (acc 641) Premiums paid from 03/03/96 to 03/11/97 = £1,151.25 Plus interest at 8% = £1,512.18 Loan 4 (acc 035) Premiums paid from 03/01/98 to 03/08/99 + £1,313.90 Plus interest at 8% = £1,537.49 Excess payments from account 641 = £524.62 Plus interest on excess payments = £613.89 Loan 5 (acc 032) Premiums paid from 04/10/99 to 04/06/02 = £2,308.55 Plus interest at 8% = £2,223.89 Excess payments made from account 035 = £1,544.50 Interest on excess payments = £1,523.52 Loan 6 (acc 296) Excess payments made from account 032 = £2,308.55 Interest on excess payments at 8% = £1,479.38 Paid PPI and interest = £4719.67 8% compensation on PPI payments made = £5273.56 Excess payments made from previous accounts = £4377.67 8% compensation on payments made = £3616.79 Total redress = £17,987.69 Just realised that they have included the excess payments into loan 6 in this.

Well today I received a letter from HFC upholding my complaint on loan 2, 4 and 5. They have offered me nearly £18,000! They say that for loans 1 and 3 they do not have enough information. They say that they need statements to prove that we paid PPI all through the loans and didn't cancel it. Also they state again that loan 6 did not include PPI, but are ignoring the fact that it would have rolled over into this loan. I'm going to scan the offer letter for you to look at in a minute so you can let me know whether or not to accept the offer on these 3. We could certainly do with that kind of money right now!

You might actually get lucky if they refuse because at least you can send yours to the FOS as it was in 2006. I'd send them another letter saying that you haven't heard from them and give them a set amount of time to reply stating that you will then refer your claim to the FOS without any further communication to them.

I also meant to add that in the Customer Declaration, that none of the ticks were made by me. I filled in the Finance form with regards to employer, 3 people we knew as a reference, etc, but those ticks were certainly not mine.

Ok I've finally managed to do it. For some reason I have to do it the hard way, it keeps going back to one big paragraph otherwise!

I'm sorry if this is going to be a rather large post. I am trying to make sense of this letter so that I can reply to them, but some things are confusing me. This is by no means what I am sending to them, but mostly my ramblings trying to make sense of it. Most of it was a pretty standard reply, but the commissions part is confusing me, as is the deposit. If anyone can help me sort the waffle from the sense I would be very grateful! (their waffle, not mine!) Insurance Products We reject any suggestion that the policies in question were in any way mis-sold. The policies provided valuable cover to help you guard against unforeseen financial incidents, incidents of mechanical failure or the unfortunate circumstances where your car was a total loss. If these events had occurred and were not protected against it would have had a serious impact on your financial standing – the principal of any insurance product. In this instance you had the fortune not to claim under the cover offered.You have provided no specific evidence to support your claim. We maintain the policies were optional and you understood this at the time of purchase. You had the option to refuse the covers and seek alternative cover in the market place; you chose not to do this. You elected to purchase the covers on the day of the transaction.The finance application form completed by you indicates you were employed by ---------. You had been in that position for 11 years and the position was permanent. You were both eligible and suitable for the PPI. DAFS undertook reasonable checks to ensure you were suitable by reviewing the information provided on the documentation completed by you. It would seem fair and reasonable given the nature of the employment disclosed to recommend a policy which covers accident, sickness, unemployment, redundancy, disability and death. You were not there, we were. Just because this was what was meant to be done, does not mean to say that is what happened. I was given no choice as to whether I wanted the insurances. I needed a car; they wouldn’t let me have one unless I took out the insurances, so they were very much not optional. It is well documented that pushy sales people forced customers to take out the insurance and warranties. The BBC Whistleblower documentary showed the practices of Yes Car Credit and also attached is The Yes Car Nightmare which documents this. We were not informed that these policies could be purchased elsewhere, or that we even had a choice in the matter.The information I provided for the Finance Application was to provide you with proof of income as required, I was not told this was to assess my suitability for PPI. Again, it would not have mattered as the ‘optional’ insurances were not discussed any more than being told that if I wanted to have a car I had to have them. In reviewing the documentation provided by you it is clear you came to the showroom prepared and provided us with proof of identification and proof of income. At this point we provided you with the Welcome to Yes Car Credit booklet which explains what will happen and specifically refers to the optional insurance products. You would have filled in the Finance Application Form at that time. We would suggest you therefore had adequate time to read the sales documentation which in our opinion is clear, fair and reasonable. Of course I came to the showroom prepared with both proof of identification and proof of income. You could not go to Yes Car Credit without making an appointment and this is what I was told to bring with me. We do not recall being given a booklet and this is not included in the information from the SAR. Disclosure of Commission , You entered into an agreement with DAFS on ..........2002. The agreement is in fact two agreements, sometimes referred to as a multiple agreement. (and this is important, why?) It is treated as two separate agreements by virtue of s. 18(2) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The first is a Conditional Sale Agreement (this I get, it means that the credit has been provided to us for the purpose of buying a car and that it won’t belong to us until it’s paid for) and the second, a fixed sum credit agreement for the optional insurances. (this I also get, it’s a loan agreement to buy the insurances)The fixed sum credit agreement, i.e. the insurance agreement, is a restricted-use debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within sections 11(b) and 12(b) of the Act as the supplier (the insurer) is separate from the creditor (DAFS) whereas the conditional sale agreement is within ss. 11(a) and 12(a) of the Act as the supplier and creditor are the same (DAFS)This is where I am getting confused. Does this actually mean anything or is it just waffle? 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. (This is where I get stuck. I don’t understand this part. Who paid the commission to who, and is it true that they did not have to disclose it? What are they talking about when they say ‘the agency was disclosed to your client?) Allocation of 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. What! Isn’t it obvious that when you buy a car and pay a deposit, you expect it to be taken off the cost of the car? So are they saying that because we didn’t tell them we specifically wanted the deposit taken from the car they could allocate it where they liked?

http://www.clydeco.com/uploads/Files/Publications/2012/CLYDECO_Hong_Kong_Insurance_e-Newsletter_(Jan_2012).pdf ...and this...as DAFS are supposedly an agent for the insurance company that provided the PPI.

http://www.out-law.com/page-8927 Don't know if that helps at all with the subject of commissions?

Can anyone explain to me in plain English what they are waffling on about concerning the commissions please...

But did you read the end paragraph about the allocation of the deposit!

Well after all the fuss, today we received a reply from DAF. Most of it was your typical standard fob-off. I've attached it so you can see what it says. I note that they haven't acknowledged that this was the second time that I have had to send the claim, nor the fact that it came with a letter before action. Angie

Time wasters!

http://www.cleggssolicitors.com/nottingham-solicitors/index.php?view=article&catid=35%3Apersonalinjuryandlitigation&id=154%3Aharrison&tmpl=component&print=1&page=&option=com_content This is what worries me about using commission payments as a reason to claim.

Please let me know how you get on. I will be watching with interest.

I've been looking for the FLA lending code for 1992 and am having problems finding anything. I can only seem to find a 2006 version or a 2012 version. Apparently there were also changes in 2002, but as I can't find any revisions for that year either I don't know if that was dated before or after we bought our car.

Were they legally obliged to complete one in 2002?

I sent all my info in the first instance to PO Box 1135, Bradford BD1 9PU. However they never sign for it so that you have proof it was received. I sent it a second time to No1 Godwin Street, Bradford, where it has still not been signed for, but pased on to the PO Box address, wasting yet more of my time. I filled in the FOS questionnaire and sent it to them with a copy of my agreement, a copy of the commissions sheet, the SOC spreadsheet to show how much they owed me, plus a copy of The Yes Car Nightmare which I printed off to show how it was well documented that they made people take out the PPI and subsequent warranties. I now have to wait for a second eight week period before I can then send a second letter before action. Whatever they do to mess you about (and they will) don't give up. You will have to take them to court, it's the only language they understand unfortunately.

I've definitely not got a demands and needs statement in my pack, so I can't see that you would either. I've never known anyone to say they have one.

Absolutely no chance of me going away. The appalling way that I've been ignored is just spurring me on. They will barely look at my claim, but file it away for 8 weeks before they send out their standard response. It can only look worse for them when it comes to court..

I had a feeling I would have to wait. It doesn't surprise me that this is a deliberate policy. I cannot wait to get this shower to court and will most certainly document all of their time wasting.

No. It only quoted our agreement number, nothing else.

They've given me no reference number, only quoted the agreement number. I've sent them the questionnaire, spreadsheet, copy of the agreement and a copy of the commissions sheet.

Oh, ok. I already sent it to the PO box address at the beginning of February and got no reply. Sent it again to Godwin Street with a LBA which the PO box address have now acknowledged stating their 8 week time scale, but they have ignored the LBA stating 14 days.

So did you also have to send your claim twice and allow them the 8 weeks twice?