Just a quick update for the forum. The case has been filed at court using a simple POC to start the claim. Statement above to follow when the court asks for it.

If the debtor cannot afford the original bill then there are no fees because its based on % amount recovered. Having a % system paid on result would ensure local councils and other creditors to use better dilligence whether bailiffs is appropriate action for the debtors circumstances. The police are quick to nick a taxi driver for driving 35 in a 30 with three points and £90 fine, but its allright to overcharge a struggling single mum hundreds for having council tax arrears. So I also agree it should be an offence to charge a debtor more than the law allows. A single fee schedule in post 28 should apply to all debts recovered and not just council tax and HCEO.

hmm, yes please! that would be fantastic.

The total value of £4568 at an interest rate of 28.3% over 36 months which should have attracted interest of £1292.75 I paid 36 x £250.85 plus a one off £68.00 It should have been 36 x £189.69 I am claiming £2269.76 plus statutory interest. 1st payment was made on June 20, 2000, overcharged by £61.16, so the statutory interest on this sum is £57.76 as at March 31 2013 being 4296 days Repeat for the remaining 36 payments until May 30, 2003 and the fin al payment £68.00 on June 30, 2006. The draft claim particulars are: Claim No: xxxxx IN THE where? COUNTY COURT BETWEEN: - me ("the Claimant") - and - WELCOME FINANCE ("the Defendant") PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1. The Claimant opened a Consumer Credit Agreement with the Defendant in 2000. The account number is xxxxxwhich was a Consumer Credit Act regulated car loan agreement with a total value of £4568 at an interest rate of 28.3% over 36 months attracting interest of £1292.75 over the term and the final payment of £68.00 was made on 30 June 2003. I will refer to this as the "Agreement". 2. The Agreement included Payment Protection Insurance ("PPI") and "Other: Old Shortfall / Gap Insurance"and "Other: Old Mechanical Breakdown Insurance"which were taken out at the same time. 3. The Claimant contends that the PPI and other policies relating to the Agreement was purchased without me knowing I had purchased them until I made enquiries as to why the repayments seemed high and investigated whether unlawful charges had been made by the Defendant. 4. The Office of Fair Trading states that "PPI protects borrowers' ability to maintain repayments and should help them avoid getting into debt should they be unable to keep up their repayments due to accident, sickness or unemployment." The Claimant contends that the insurance policies sold in relation to the Agreement were never capable of meeting those requirements because the insurance policies were sold to the Claimant without the Claimant’s knowledge. 5. The Claimant contends that the insurance policies relating to the Agreement was not suitable for purpose because the Claimant had no knowledge of the existence of the insurance. 6. The Claimant believes that a reasonable level of care and skill was not offered to the Claimant by the Manager during the sales process, and that therefore The Defendant failed to meet its obligations under the terms of section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. 7. The Claimant believes it is inconceivable that a person occupying a management position within a national company specialising in personal finance, would not have been given full training in the eligibility requirements for a product that provides a considerable boost to its profitability through commission and interest. 8. On the basis of this, and further contentions outlined below, the Claimant believes that the advice given by the Manager was in fact fraudulent, and therefore a breach of common law, in that the representation of the product’s suitability was either made (1) knowingly, or (2) without belief in its truth, or (3) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. I refer the court to the judgement given by Lord Herschell (Derry v Peak (1889) 14 App Cas 337). 9. The Claimant contends that the Manager was made fully aware of the employment position of the Claimant, and should have had the necessary training and experience to know that the policy was not suitable. 10. The Claimant also contends that there should have been a system of supervision and checking in place to ensure that such errors, omissions and misrepresentations were noticed, and corrective action taken, and if there was no such system in place, then that should also be considered as a failure of the Defendant to meet its obligations under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. 11. The Claimant contends that there was no information provided of alternative options, or comparative costs of similar PPI products from other suppliers. 12. The Claimant contends that no information was given regarding the additional costs that the insurance premiums would add to the loan, and that the Manager quoted the amounts as monthly figures without including interest as a deliberate act intended to cover the true cost. 13. The Claimant contends that it was never explained that the insurance premiums would attract interest. 14. The claimant contends that the pressure applied by the Manager, and the inexperience of the signatories in financial matters at the time, contributed to the forms being signed without them being fully checked. 15. Notwithstanding that the forms were signed, and in any respect, the Claimant contends that there was an entitlement to expect that the advice and information given was true and honest, and that a reasonable level of care and skill would be given to ensure that the best interests of the customer were being met. 16. The Claimant contends that the PPI was sold with a view to meeting sales targets and providing bonuses and commission for the Manager and staff, rather than to help the Claimant attain a better financial position. 17. The Claimant believes that these conflicts of interest put the Manager in a position where future career path and financial gain were a prime motivator, and because of this the Manager did not maintain the duty of honesty and care that is a requirement in law, and under the Banking Code and OFT Guidelines. 18. In paragraph 10, the Claimant contended that there should have been a system of supervision and checking in place. The Claimant contends that the very fact that such a system was not in place, or that the system failed to identify the errors, omissions and misrepresentations highlighted elsewhere in these Particulars, should be considered as evidence of a policy of "turning a blind eye" by senior company management whose careers and remuneration are also reliant on bonuses, incentive schemes and sales targets. 19. In the light of the contentions made above, the Claimant asks that the court consider that an "unfair relationship" exists under the terms of section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Should the court decide that section 140A does not apply; the Claimant contends that the actions of the Defendant grossly contravene ordinary principles of fair dealing as outlined in section 138 of the Act, and therefore Agreement A and Agreement B should each be ruled as an "extortionate credit bargain". 20. In considering this, and all matters in this claim, the Claimant asks the court to take into account the following Principles of Business which are legally binding on the Defendant under the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000, and now contained in the FSA Handbook: Principle 1 Integrity - A firm must conduct its business with integrity. Principle 2 Skill, care and diligence - A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence. Principle 3 Management and control - A firm must take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems. Principle 5 Market conduct - A firm must observe proper standards of market conduct. Principle 6 Customers' interests - A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly. Principle 7 Communications with clients - A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading. Principle 8 Conflicts of interest - A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client. Principle 9 Customers: relationships of trust - A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment. 21. The Claimant contends that the Defendant has been given ample opportunity to seek a resolution to the matters raised in this claim, and their outright refusal to even enter into discussions is a clear breach of the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000 and the Claimant received the Defendants "Final Response" letters dated 21 August 2012 and 30 August 2012 without any offer or promise of payment of the sum claimed and a further Final Response letter on 19 November 2012 saying "the event" took place before 23 February 2003 and " not required to investigate complaints" but on further enquiry it has been discovered there is no regulation that exists that excludes the Defendant from liability from miss-selling insurance. The Defendant says that liability resides with the "provider" and not the broker but the Defendant is unable to identify the legislation relied upon and failed to provide the name and address of the "provider" therefore the Claimant contends the Defendant is liable for returning the money taken for the premiums and interest charged thereto for the miss-selling of the insurance products. 22. The Claimant will also cite the voluntary codes to which the Defendant has agreed to be bound, and which support the view that a fiduciary responsibility can be assumed in a Bank Manager/Client relationship, and that any breach of that assumed level of trust should be regarded as an extremely serious matter. 23. In any case, the Claimant will contend that the promotional material produced by the Defendant, give great prominence and emphasis to their integrity and commitment to customer service. Again, the Claimant would contend that where this expensively portrayed image of professional integrity proves to be otherwise, the perpetrator should be held to account. 24. Under section 75(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a creditor is jointly and severally liable for misrepresentations and breaches in contract of the supplier, and therefore the Claimant contends that the Defendant is liable for the actions of the Manager, even though the Manager may have been employed elsewhere. 25. The Claimant seeks damages and other sums, as listed in appendix 1 attached to this statement, against the Defendant under Common Law, and/or section 2 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, and/or section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and/or under section 32(1)© Limitations Act 1980. 26. Should the contention of the Claimant that an "unfair relationship" exists under the terms of section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Claimant also asks that the court consider using its powers under section 140B(1)© of the Act to refund to the claimant the sums listed in paragraph 25 above. 27. Should the contention of the Claimant that an "extortionate credit bargain" exists under the terms of section 138 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Claimant also asks that the court consider using its powers under section 139 of the Act to refund to the claimant the sums listed in paragraph 25 above. The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. Signed: Date: Claim No: xxxx IN THE where? COUNTY COURT BETWEEN: - me ("the Claimant") - and - WELCOME FINANCE ("the Defendant") APPENDIX 1 (a) Schedule of loan repayments including insurance premiums paid by the Claimant. (b) Schedule of loan repayments for a loan amount of £4568.00 repaid over 36 months at an APR of 28.3% without any insurance premiums Difference between table (a) and table (b) is £2269.76 © Table of Statutory interest claimed under s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 until March 31 2013. (Calculation: £61.16 x 0.00022% x number of days = statutory interest)

Thank you sir, that is perfect! Yes its the Welcome case, Im drafting the claim particulars now.

If the lender argues the Limitation Act then what do I use in my counter-argument?

The debtor.

5% on the money recovered min £50 Distance travelled not counted. If the job is too far away then give it to a local tradesman to execute. Cost of management of debtors goods. The receipted sum paid to the auction company plus 30p a mile from debtors postcode to auction company postcode taking the shortest road route.

If I put in a claim in the county court and the lender argues the Limitation Act, what do I use to counter-argue it?

Does a PPI reclaim become statute barred? Last date of payment is June 30, 2003.

OK done, The bank statement is showing last payment is June 2003.

OK Im on the case

I just had a letter from Welcome saying they will not investigate my complaint because the event too place before February 2003. Can I still ask for a refund of premiums? I dont mind using the small claims court but I need to know if I am entitled to my money back? It was an old car loan, about £5K and I ended up paying about £9k so I knew something wasnt right.