After weighing up the different options, I decided against going down the agreement route, as the information I was getting is from the agreement. Plus I stand to get more by claiming for the PPI. To that end, I sent the following letter on 3 Oct Dear Sir/Madam, Ref – Agreement No. xxxxxxxxx I believe I have been mis-sold a payment protection insurance policy and would like to request a full refund of my premiums, plus interest paid. I took out a £x loan at the xxx branch of Yes Car Credit for car (reg xxxx xxx) on 31 July 2004 and also bought a payment protection policy which would cost me an extra £xxx over the life of the loan. The total amount of my premiums plus interest is £xxx. The reasons I believe I have been mis-sold are detailed below: 1. Your member of staff did not ask me about any previous medical conditions when the policy was sold; 2. In the Agreement, it states that I cannot cancel the policy. As the FSA has now stated ‘no refund’ terms are considered unfair I would like my original cancellation request (requested at the time of taking out the car loan) to be honoured; 3. I was not given the correct information when the policy was sold to me; 4. Your salesperson was very pushy in selling me the policy so that I felt I could not say no; 5. Your salesperson did not tell me that the policy was optional; 6. Your salesperson stated that taking out the policy was essential for me to get the associated credit; 7. I am concerned the sales assistant that sold me the policy has no financial background and the policy was not sold in my best interests. I do not believe being forced to buy this policy as part of the loan was a fair and reasonable obligation as I did not need this insurance and said at the time of taking the loan that I did not want it. I am requesting a full refund of all my insurance payments, plus interest, which total £xxx. (This is comprised of 37 monthly payments, to date, of £xxx, as set out in section 3.0 of my Credit Agreement.) As I believe I have been deprived of this money I also expect 8% statutory interest, the amount a court would award, to be added to each payment made. I also expect the insurance to be removed from any future payments, beginning with October 2007, such that all future payments are £xxx. If I do not receive a favourable response from you I will pursue this claim through the Financial Ombudsman. Yours faithfully, Doryphor They have sent this dated Oct 19 as a reply: We refer to your letter dated 3 October 2007. We have reviewed your file fully, regarding the points raised. We reject any suggestion that the sale of the policy in question was in any way mis sold. There is significant evidence that you were aware insurance products were optional. Your recollection of the facts in July 2004, now appear very vivid, so we have reviewed the documentation you signed, the interpretation is also clear:- Conditional Sale Agreement a. You signed an important legal document, in which you specifically confirmed you wanted to be 'legally bound by its terms' b. Just above your signature there are statements in bold, which state, 'If any of the statements in the Customer's Declaration are not true, you should not sign this agreement' - you signed the agreement. c. Given point b. above I refer you to Point 7 'Additional Insurance Protection', where the 'yes' box is ticked to the statement 'Have you received a leaflet with details of the insurance(s) you have applied for and explaining the extent of the cover?' d. To reaffirm point c. you signed the Customer Declaration under the paragraph commencing 'I/we agree that the above statements are correct' Handover Checklist a. You have signed this form confrming the Finance Department had fully explained 'the additional optional insurance products'. We wish to make it clear at the outset that your reference to FSA regulation of the general insurance industry, including promulgation of the ICOB rules, came into force on 14 January 2005. The policy to which your letter relates was sold on 31st July 2004. You have provided no particulars of the conversations, which are alleged to have taken place. You have the benefit of a policy which can be invoked at any time to your benefit, should you suffer accident, sickness or unemployment. You have not complained about the existence of the insurance policy before now. In the circumstances, we consider the seven points of your argument for a refund to be wholly without merit. Your position is not supported by any evidence. We have no reason to believe that our standard procedures were not followed at the time the agreement was entered into, or that the optional nature of the insurance products was not fully explained to you. Our position is borne out by the documents signed by you. It remains your prerogative to take whatever action you feel necessary, if you still feel pursuit of a 'claim' is warranted. We have responded to your correspondence and will now close your file. However, please not that this agreement with our Company started on 31st July 2004 and therefore, occurred before we were FSA authorised. It is our understanding that this therefore falls outside the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service Yours sincerely Now, aside from being very condescending in tone, it does seem that I have no recourse. Is this reply some sort of standard response? Does what they say about the FSA authorisation hold true? I'm concerned that they have me over the proverbial barrel.

Thank you so much for this! Good tip about the signature, I wouldn't have thought about that!

I've been reading the mammoth thread here Loan Company Cannot Supply Original Agreement and am unsure which I should do first. Given the recent fines imposed on Yes/DAF, I'm half inclined to send the letter asking for my insurance premiums to be refunded. I'd actually be better off, financially, doing that. On the other hand, I might get further faster by requesting a true copy of the agreement by sending a SAR, as after 12 working days the debt becomes unenforcable, and 30 days thereafter, an offence is committed. I found a template for a CCA request, but not a full SAR. From what I've read (and my head is spinning a bit!) the full SAR means that I really should be getting a copy of my signature as well. Any suggestions on wording for that? Can I even put it all in one letter, or is that too much? CCA, SAR and PPI claim. Many thanks on this. There is such a wealth of information on this site these days!

Many thanks for the response, hellhas! I haven't yet sent a SAR, nor a CCA request. From what you say, I'm guessing I should do that first. Should they then be able to produce a CCA, then I can go ahead with the PPI claim. If they're not able to produce a CCA within the given time limits, and all options as per that process are exhausted, I suspect I then have no legal reason to continue payments, as no agreement legally exists. Do I get previous payments back as well? Tis a nice thought, and possibly falls under the 'too good to be true' bracket. (Although, the bank charges claiming seemed too good to be true, and that happened!)

Having had a look at this page, Consumers to benefit from PPI refunds agreement linked from one of the other threads, I suspect my T&Cs might contain the "not apply nil refund terms in contracts with existing customers;" clause. Here is a copy of what I think may be the relevant clause in the contract: 4.2...If an Event of Default shall occur of this Agreement shall be terminated, then we shall be entitled to demand that you shall pay immediately the whole of the balance of the Insurance Instalments outstanding (whether or not otherwise accrued due) less a Statutory Rebate at the time of the payment. later 6.6.1 If we terminate this agreement for any reason, then, in addition to your liability under clause 6.4 above, you must immediately pay the whole of the balance of the Insurance Instalments outstanding (whether or nor otherwise accrued due) less a Statutory Rebate at the time of payment. In addition to these two clauses, it clearly states that the Insurances are 'Non Cancellable', which in itself simply doesn't sound right. In the same box of the 'credit agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974' that details the insurance costs and interest relevant to those costs, it states that, "the excerise [sic!] of your right of termination will have no effect on your obligation to pay the Insurance Instalments." In other words, I can cancel the agreement, but still have to pay the PPI. The more I read this, and the more I read that FSA link above, the more I think that contrary to my previous post I may have something here. Since it appears the T&Cs contravene the FSAs agreement, I truly hope that Yes/DAF will simply cough up the PPI payments.

Against all odds, I've located my copy of the agreement. Now, under the section detailing the insurances, it says 'Addition Optional Non Cancellable Insurances'. While it says that there, I was told in person that I needed to have them to take out the car loan, as is the tradition it seems. Assuming they are actually able to locate a copy of the agreement themselves (a separate issue), where does that make me stand in attempting a claim? In essence, it comes down as my word against theirs - albeit with a fine already applied to them for the same issue previously - but with documentary evidence showing I signed something that said it was optional. I distinctly remember asking the lady, 'do I have to have the insurance?', and her solemnly intoning that, yes I did. It bumped the payments from £102.65 to £141.16 per month. Over the three and a bit years of payments (less than a year to go!), that means an extra £1463.38. Which, as it happens is approximately equal to the remaining 10 months total payments (obviously those payment still include the insurance of course.) I'd love to be shot of this company, but am fearful of starting down a path which will end up with them shoving the agreement in my face, and say that I signed knowing it was optional. Having had the 'fact' that it was mandatory shouted at me the whole time I was taking out the loan, I missed that part of the agreement. Only in taking it out now do i see it - but that holds no weight in a court of law, I'm sure!

Hi, when I took out a car loan through the new defunct Yes Car Credit 3 years ago, I was told I had to take PPI as part of the agreement. This was done in person, so no phone records remain for that exchange. I can't see any other threads relating to Yes so I wondered what other people thought on the likelihood of being able to claim back the PPI charges, as given a choice I wouldn't have selected it. The other thing is that, unlike credit cards where it's added on monthly dependent on your balancce, the total costs for the term of the loan were calculated and added to the total loan cost as a grand total amount to repay. How would this affect my ability to reclaim? Many thanks for any advice!

I'm aware of the purpose of the thread. If Yes Car Credit as a creditor can't abide by the laws of the land and provide a valid agreement, then I'd simply like to know where I stand. Sorry if that wasn't made clear. From the information I have read, these loans that are being queried, existed, but the enforcability of those loans is being questioned through the inability on the part of the creditor to provide valid documentation in support of that agreement. No one is saying that the loan didn't exist - how else was the money (or in my case, car) initially provided by the creditors? No, it is the enforcability which is in question, and it is the specific enforcability of my situation I was querying. In addition to that, I was enquiring as to whether a simple guide for general usage was possible (and fair enough if it's not - that's why it's just a query, rather than a request) to facilitate others in understanding and action. I'm not trying to 'run away from [my] debts' as you say - merely trying to ascertain where I stand legally with regards to the enforcability of my claim.

I looked briefly at this thread back at the start of the year, but many other things were going on, and have only had another glance at it now. 121 pages of posts is a hefty lot to sift through, ensuring information is fully and completely understood. There seem to be many more intelligent folks than I whose knowledge of this area of the law far exceeds my own (not a difficult task, mind). I wondered if it would be a simple task for those in the know to put together a brief guide for those interested in pursuing this line of action. I am interested, but am daunted by the sheer volume of info, much of which may not be relevant, and may be contradicted later on as more information is discovered over time. For instance, I have one year left on a car agreement with the dreaded Yes Car Credit. If they're unable to provide the agreement, signed, etc, and after the requisite period of time I notify them of their default and cease payments, are they then within their rights to say, 'well, how have you got that car, if there's no agreement, we'll take it back thanks'. And if they did, would I still be in my rights to claim back any payments, or would the fact that clearly the car exists nullify any potential claim? I think the guide idea would helpful to many, much as the other guides have helped so many. Doryphor

That's perfect, cheers! It's a bit like learning a language through reading a dictionary - a lot of cross-referencing lol!

An order to have a hearing without a hearing... Do they make this up to increase beyond doubt the confusion of us poor lay people?!! lol!!! Thanks! Since it's a point of law that 'ignorance is no excuse' (there's some Latin phrase for it, I know), they sure make it easy to be ignorant!! In fact, i tried googling 'british law' or some similar term, and found little in the way of across-the-board-understandable-to-the-lay-person site where one could gain a knowledge of the laws, of which we are not allowed to be ignorant!! *sigh*

Hi again! With regards to the wording on the letter to send, it refers specifically to the 'Preliminary Hearing'. The judge has ordered this without a hearing, so when it says, I, the Claimant, refer to the claim as detailed above and specifically the Preliminary hearing scheduled for xx/xx/xx, what should I put instead of 'preliminary hearing'? Cheers!

That's perfect - it puts out what I need to say in a professional manner, and it also reassures me that things are progressing normally, rather than some unique event for me lol! my wife is getting increasingly frustrated by Lloyds' stalling tactics. I'm more reassured in that eventually we'll get something, but they do seem to like taking it to the eleventh hour!

Just thought I'd put this to the top of the pile again, see if anyone missed it...! Cheers

Had a 'General Form of Judgment or Order' through today. It states: Before District Judge Hendicott at Cardiff County Court. Upon the Court's own motion. The Court has made this order of its own initiative without a hearing. If you object to the order, you must make an application to have it set aside, varied or stayed within 7 days of receiving it. IT IS ORDERED THAT 1. Directions will be given in this case by the Designated Civil Judge, His Honour Judge G Hickinbottom, on .... 2. The parties may appear in person or make written representations as to how the case should proceed provided a copy of the representations is sent to the Court and the other side at least 7 working days prior to the hearing. So.. question is, what exactly does this mean? I've heard of some people attending a hearing, but this seems different. The use of the 'Judgment' in the Form title confuses me as well. Can anyone shed some light on this? In the meantime, I'll have a further browse around here as well. Thanks.