The ridiculous thing is that they've probably spent more in Barrister's fees to just pay you off with a confidentiality agreement! Am I right in thinking that all this was for £127???! Blimey - think I'll be closing my CapOne credit card if they treat customers like this.

I'm really sorry to hear you lost. Does the Sale of Goods Act not place the onus on them to prove 'fit for purpose'? What happened with the discussions over the validity of the CCA?

Is the burden of proof not with Egg to prove that they did not mis-sell the PPI cover under the Sale of Good Act? I'm not 100% confident on PPI legislation or issues so feel free to correct me, but I thought that the SoGA effectively placed the onus on the provider to show that the product sold is / was 'fit for purpose'.

Were you ever asked to fill out a needs and benefits questionnaire? I know that a number of firms use these to assess whether or not someone would benefit from the cover or not. I intend checking the Good Practice Guidelines of the Association of British Insurers to assess whether this is part of their deemed 'good practice'. A typical questionnaire is simply just a checklist of "1 Have you ever suffered from back pain................................2 Have you ever suffered from Asthma..........................3 Have you ever suffered from cancer....................." and goes on to list any number of illnesses to assess suitability. This will be part of my own claim in that the Bank never sought to assess suitability instead saying that terms and conditions would be supplied after the point of sale. There was no active assessment of suitability.

Halifax have apparently lodged a defence which will be with me over the next few days (apparently they lodged it late but that's ok for the Courts apparently - wonder if they'd feel so happy if David rather than Goliath did similar?) and looks like my case is going to rumble on further. I'll post more of the details of this juts as soon as I get sight of their defence myself.

Oh well, this goes from something which they could amicably settle by repaying me my premiums to going to court as a result of their own obstinance and refusal to accept that the policy was NEVER fit for purpose.

Would welcome any thoughts on the information and details I ahve posted so far as I am utterly convinced that I have a case, but would welcome third party comments on this in the event that my anger with them is clouding my own judgement.

My thoughts thus far is:

Invalid CCA - does not contain prescribed terms nor in the corrcet form;

CCA not completed by me - therefore, possible fraud?

PPI never fit for purpose? Sale of Goods Act not complied with;

Association of British Insurers guidelines not complied with - bad practice in sale of PPI;

Mispresentation - alluded to in marketing materials that PPI cover would offer protection in the event of ASU when the extensive t & c were never explained or information provided to as to these (indeed, their correspondence with me doesn't even agree as to what their procedures are - one said before the point of sale, and others said after the point of sale!)

Again, would welcome third party comments given that it looks like we're going all the way with this one now.

Good luck again, Oggy. I've heard tody that the Courts have received a defence in respect of my claim (annoyingly the Bank served their papers late - Grrrrrrrrrrr) and looks like there is more mileage in my own case now. Still watching yours with interest and hope you pave the way for some success!

I think that's pretty straight and to the point! HBoS / BOS or Retail Collections within that group do not communicate with any other part of the organisation. Even when I was in correspondence with their CExec's Office over bank charges, the Collections people were still chasing for money long after a settlement was agreed.

Good luck - don't let the barstewards grind you down!

Don't worry - there's still time! If they don't settle, then you get the chance to tell them every honest truth in court. In some ways, I hope the halfiax turn up for court just so I can mouth off at them (although that says quite a lot about me!)

Well done - another success story to keep up momentum!

Left hand /right hand......................a*se / elbow........................proverbial in a brewery.....................have all applied to this shower in my experience!

I would always use a postal order or a cheque from someone else as I would not trust the blighters to use a bit of artistic expression and copy your signature and recreate a CCA to suit.

You may want to re-number your bullet points to avoid any confusion as there are two number 6's. (Being pedantic with that because I think it's a great letter!)

Oh dear - so they've defaulted you while ignoring Trading Standards?!

With me, I prepared a complaint to the FOS today about the 'CCA' that was sent to my by Sainsburys. I imagine the FOS will take some time to even consider this and ultimately side with Sainsburys but at least by complaining I'll cost Sainsburys time and money!

This is where my confusion comes from over the application, and to date, the info provided by the Halifax just makes it murkier.

The Halifax have advised that the application was made by 'mailer' and have stated that this is why there was no 'selling' or sale advice as such taking place in relation to this insurance. Therefore, Association of British Insurers good practice guidelines on the sale of insurance was not followed - which they state they would have done had it been a credit card or phone sale. Instead, as this was a mailer application, the details of the PPI terms and conditions would have been provided either at a later date / or at the point of sale (depending upon which if their letters you believe!). I have suggested that the two contrary answers provided would suggest that they don't have a clear process on such sales or the provisions of policy information. Certainly they have never suggested a needs and benefits form was completed, and that the whole basis of the sale relies upon the CCA as provided (which is why the present documentation and it's unrecognisable handwriting worries me so).

The only real conclusion I can come up with is that someone else - not from my side or on my behalf - completed the details of the form because there was some advantage in it for them to have the form say something in particular about that application. Given that it costs just £20 to administer a PPI sale, but that the rewards can be thousands of pounds worth of pure profit, I'm speculating as to where and who had the advantage in all of this!

Am I right in thinking that the burden of proof rests with me in this, or is it with the party who sold the insurance?

Would welcome any thoughts as I could be in court in the Summer on this matter!

Oggy, thatnks for mentioning your MBNA case as I've just had a read through the details of that which are very interesting (and useful) for me to note - particularly the part about MBNA appearing mob-handed in the court! (Am I scared? Hell no - it just means that there's going to be more of their staff / legal costs tied up unless they settle early - I'm looking on the brightside!)

Absolutely! Good luck! Why they just don't settle with you (or Halifax with me), I don't know

I did apply for this card, but in all honesty, it was so long ago, I can't remember the details of it, hence me requesting the CCA in the first place. The card was taken out when I started a new job to cover expenses as the job required lots of travel. There was a 2 and a half week break between one job and the next, which apparently meant that I would not have been covered by the unemployment part of the policy which required continuous employment at the time of taking out the card.

I hope the judge would not think that a date stamp and a few initials good enough to assess when it was completed as anyone with a date stamp (such as most offices) could rustle up any date!

Where the problems appear for me is that I do some of the info is just wrong - profession, address - specifically the flat number, even the way that my salary was written. I've run this by someone at the local University who specialises in handwriting and he has said that it is clearly not mine. That's why I'm SO angry at the Halifax just saying, "It's yours, case closed, sod off" with no efforts to investigate or try and explain the differences.

Ultimately, I just want an answer as to where this form has come from - I certainly did not fill in the information on it.

Interesting quote from the solicitors who were acting against HFC:

"The PPI market has been the subject of intense regulatory scrutiny amid claims that it is unnecessary and expensive. The policies, designed to insulate consumers from an unforeseen loss of income, are highly profitable, with lenders earning as much as £1,200 from a policy that costs only £20 to sell, according to the Competition Commission".

So now we know - £20 to sell a policy and the possibility of making thousands. This really can be described as a non-protection racket.

Great reading!!! Given that it looks as if I'm going to be off to court against Howard and the rest of the Halifax, I'm sure I'll find something to add to it over the coming few months!

FT.com / World - Watchdog ruling could hit loan costs

Report in FT Weekend outlining the impact that a recent Compeition Commission investigation into PPI cover could have on loan rates.

The article contains the fantastic line:

"Banks have, in effect, subsidised the costs of personal loans by cross-selling the same consumers payment protection insurance, which carries a better profit margin".

Absolutely!

The actual court date hasn't been decided as yet. The Hellifax have until 28th May to return their defence to the Court which, if they do, I suppose means that we are going the full way to me standing front of a judge and giving him / her the full story of how I paid £2,000 for a PPI policy which was completely and utterly useless. Also that the Hellifax have been unable to present a CCA that complies with the 1974 Act, furthermore that when I challenged the validity of the handwriting on it, their response was to accuse me of fraud!!! (In their words, "If the handwriting on the application is not yours, then you must have allowed someone to use your details to apply for a card........................if you later used that card then you are guilty of fraud" - what on earth do they think the advantage of me doing that would be? Do they really think a judge is so stupid as to fall for some veiled threat accusing me of fraud over a card which I used and have been religiously paying for the next 7 years?! What possible advantage do they think there is to me in asking someone to fill in my details on an application form if I was goingto go on and use the card and pay back the balance each month? Unless of course it wasn't someone on my side that filled in the application form and ticked the box saying 'PPI cover wanted' which then led to me paying £2K over the next few years and someone in the bank somewhere getting a bonus or commission on the basis of what that form said - which scenario sounds more likely?!)

The Ha-Ha-lifax really are laughable if that is the extent of their defence - talk about wasting a court's time..............or treating their customers like idiots...................or showing a lack of concern for integrity in their business dealings..............

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR - they make me so mad!!!!

Well, despite my last letter advising that I'm willing to call the whole thing off if they just refund my premiums, I've had no communication from them at all. it sounds to me as if they are happy to take this one all the way. Fine by me - I'm not the one failing a customer, covering it up by producing documents and trying to pass it off as a customer's handwriting, failing to act when advised by a customer that there is a problem over the validity of the documentation provided, failing to provide a valid CCA despite a formal request from a customer...........................

............need I continue?!!!!

No wonder you're 'unhappy' - i know what it's like dealing with the Halifax and it is absolutely frustrating. Of all the organisations I have dealt with, I have found them to be completely lacking in any degree of customer service. Furthermore, the fact that the Chief Exec's Office is that which is responding to my correspondence and failing to do anything to repair the situation as it stands, would suggest to me that their entire organisation from top-to-bottom lack any will to serve their customers well. It doesn't reflect well on them at all.

Worth noting that the Land of Leather Chief Exec was recently fined when the FSA decided that he had failed in his reponsibility as Chief Exec to ensure that there were adequte procedures and processes in place to deal with the sale of PPI.

This is certainly something I hope the Halifax are aware of.

Hi - sorry my own squabble is with a different bank altogether. Sounds as if they're of the same ilk as yours though!

Maggie - brilliant result!!! You've been a real trooper. It just goes to prove what persistance can bring. I'm nearing the end of a year long struggle with over PPI on my visa card and if I get the same result as you, I will be delighted.

Well done!!

Subscribing with interest - my own case has been acknowledged by the Bank in question and the Court and I are awaiting their defence to my POC. Will keep an eye on this thread as I may also benefit from some of the advice given.

Sorry, but I would fight them with fire and brimstone particularly as they have been fined by the FSA for mis-selling and must be nervous about these types of accusations.

The Halifax have done similar to me in saying that the information on my application form has been completed in my handwriting but I am 100% confident that it has never been near my hand and have already lodged court papers over this issue. If it was not completed by you, then they have no right to insist that it is your responsibility to make sure that it is accurate! I mean, that is making you responsible for something you have no control over.

Feel confident in going back to them that their argument sounds ridiculous! To go to court or the FOS, they would have to be absolutely certain of winning as their past record over PPI is less than rosey.