Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Zodiac


FANTASY CHARGES last won the day on December 8 2007

FANTASY CHARGES had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

270 Excellent


  • Rank
    Classic Account Holder
  1. Regarding pre January 2005 sales of ppi :- There could possibly be signs at the end of the distant tunnel regarding CERTAIN insurers - i think there is an 80% chance Cardif Pinnacle (yes cardif not cardiff) are you insurers. to quote someone, referring to cardif pinacle in particular - "FOS say now as the last time I spoke with them they were intending to use the matter of whether insurance companies had responsibility for sale as a test case with courts. " and it could take up to 5 years apparently. get looking on the search engines for more info
  2. PAGES 15 & 16 of this earlier document make interesting reading "We identified a common failing of not disclosing to the customer that the term of the cover was shorter than the term of the credit agreement and the consequences of such mismatch. Our view is that failing to disclose such a 16 CP10/6: Payment Protection Insurance complaints (March 2010) mismatch and its financial consequences to the customer would not comply with the Principles. From the introduction of ICOBS 6.4.9R(3) this would also have been a breach of the rule." this means the purchaser of PPI thought he was buying insurance for the length of the loan not just for 5 years :evil:r ----------------------- AND ON PAGE 34 "Balance 3.10 The main objection from the industry was that the overall effect of the guidance was unbalanced and unfair because it made it very difficult for firms to reject any PPI complaint, even where the firm felt it had acted quite correctly at point of sale. Three main critcisms were that:" ------------------------------- PAGE 54 Consumer Credit Act implications We agree that the approaches give rise to some implications for the existing credit agreement(s) under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). We contacted the Office of Fair Trading to understand the implications for firms in this area and reached the following conclusions. Where the PPI is sold alongside a loan, there are in fact two credit agreements. One for the principal loan and a second to finance the optional PPI. The former is debtor-creditor (d-c) and the latter is debtor-creditor-supplier (d-c-s). This is irrespective of whether the creditor is also the supplier of PPI. In CCA terms, where the PPI is sold alongside a loan, there are multiple agreements within section 18(1)(a) CCA. Each part – the principal credit agreement and the PPI credit agreement – would be treated as a separate agreement by virtue of section 18(2). They may be documented together, subject to the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (CCA Regulations). Regs 2(8) and 2(9) of the current CCA Regulations allow for a common heading and signature box and common statements of protection and remedies. Reg 2(7) requires an additional form of consent. If PPI is found to have been mis-sold, the remedy is generally to return the parties to the position they would have been in had the PPI not been taken out. This should lead to the cancellation of the PPI credit agreement and refund of monies paid by the debtor. This is consistent with Article 15.1 of the new Consumer Credit Directive which states that ‘where the consumer has exercised a right of withdrawal, based on Community law, concerning a contract for the supply of goods or services, he shall no longer be bound by a linked credit agreement’. As the PPI credit agreement is separate (for CCA purposes) from the principal credit agreement, it should be possible to cancel the former without affecting the latter. Clearly though, if payments were made together as a single monthly instalment, the amount of the instalment will need to be adjusted (as our approaches indicate). This would not require a modification of the principal credit agreement. It would simply be a consequence of cancellation of the PPI credit. Even if the principal credit and PPI credit were treated as one agreement for CCA purposes (which we do not believe would be the intended effect of section 18 CCA), it would be possible to modify the agreement to remove the PPI elements. This could be done via a modifying agreement for section 82(2) CCA purposes. The debtor would have to agree (but we generally see no reason why he would not). Alternatively, the creditor could simply refrain from collecting part of the payment and from enforcing the relevant aspects of the agreement. This could be done as a unilateral concession, although this would be less satisfactory from the debtor’s point of view as it would not have the effect of amending the contract and in theory the creditor could withdraw the unilateral concession at any time. It is better (and clearer all round) to have a modifying agreement, signed by both parties, and binding on both of them. At the very least the concession should be documented in some durable way, such as a letter acknowledging it, given the potential for disputes. Consequently, we do not see why our approaches discussed above should raise CCA enforceability issues.28 However, a firm should take care in how it documents the arrangements and what information it gives to the consumer.
  3. to find this document on the internet google fsa ps 10/12 ....................and the page numbering is wonky... for those of us that want to read more google cp10/6 and you get the view on march 2010 of the situation
  4. SORRY gannymede i am sorry about that ----- no i forgot the CPR part 8 bit when i said defence etc .... i mean ... file the allocation questionnnaire (AQ) and defence at court simultaneously {part 8 forces this !!} and serve the defence on the Council
  5. Ganymede thanks for trying to help but we know the CPR rules quite well the notice was served under CPR part 8 !! the notes on the claim form are a generalisation --part 8 CPR claims we assume are only say 1% of all claims & as we said the notice was served under CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES PART 8 ( this stops certain other parts of the CPR rules applying) Councils use CPR PART 8 when they do not expect to be questioned over the "ALLEGED" facts they produce to court - MEANING they expect a walkover ( AMONGST OTHER THINGS IF A DEFENCE IS NOT FILED UNDER cpr PART 8 -- THE CLAIMANT CANNOT OBTAIN SUMMARY JUDGEMENT)
  6. Imagine a Local council issues a claim form using a POBox followed by its real address , it is assumed the postcode is that of the POBox Question .. can the defence be handed it at the Council offices (see below for mythical example , in this case 23 the Big House) or does it have to be posted to the pobox address? and IF the answer is that THE DEFENCE MUST BE POSTED to the POBox and say the defence was posted on a Monday -- recorded delivery -- in law what is the day the defence is deemed as served on the Claimant eg Mickey Mouse council Po Box 123 23 The Big House Lancaster Mythical Postcode
  • Create New...