Odie V Northern Rock

[Odie]

One further question, you state the interest was 14.9% was that the flat rate charged or the APR.

 

It says APR 14.9%. That is all it says. I assume this is not flat rate.

 

I also assumed this was the actual interest rate applied to the loan. If it isn't then I don't know how to work it out. All the figures and information I have on this loan are on the previous page if that helps?

[Odie]

I think....but not sure if my sums are correct. The APR is 14.9% and the P/A rate is 7.98%. I could be totally wrong though.

[Odie]

..

[Odie]

Can anyone check my figures?

[peter534]

Shouldn't this thread be called Odie V's Barclays?

[Odie]

Well it started off as a Northern Rock question and progressed to Barclays. It seems silly to have 5 threads for the 5 different banks we are claiming for.

[peter534]

I understand where you are coming from, however, many newcomers find it hard to navigate this site and would find things much easier if each thread dealt with one issue. Some threads take hours to trawl through due to people digressing, and when you finish reading them you feel slightly cheated because the information you hoped to find wasn't there due to the thread ended up taking a completely different direction to what the title would suggest.

 

5 Threads may seem an overkill, but by keeping things simple people will find them easier to follow and that would benefit all.

 

I didn't mean to sound like i was having a dig.

[Odie]

Hey, no problem. I am up for a name change if a Mod would oblige. please.

[hellhasnofury]

Hello Odie,

 

I personally think that you are best to stick to as little threads as you can, because those who are trying to help will find themselves all over the place and may miss something important that you post.

[Odie]

I have my figures and POC all ready to use (incase I need to) but I would really like someone to have a look over them for me incase I am making a pratt of myself

[Odie]

Here is my POC if someone could have a squizz!

 

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

 

1. The Claimant had a credit agreement 4924172903/0401 ("the Agreement") with the Defendant which was opened on 4th January 2003 and closed on 12 July 2006.

 

2. At the time of undertaking the credit agreement, the agent acting on behalf of the Defendant misled the Claimant into procuring Payment Protection Insurance ("the Insurance") as part of the overall credit bargain.

 

3. The Claimant contends that:

 

a) Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the Claimant was misled and false information was given during the interview process on the day the agreement was made;

i) The Insurances sold to the Claimant were not defined nor explained and were not "optional" as laid out in the said agreement, the Claimant was informed that The Insurance was part and parcel of having a loan. The Defendants agent misrepresented the fact that the insurance was compulsory, due to inexperience in financial matters at the time of the Claimant, this was taken at face value; the Claimant felt that there was no choice but to agree to the credit bargain.

ii) The Insurance was miss-sold, as the Claimant was employed at the time in an industry where redundancy is unheard of, the Claimant’s employers operated a policy of death in service benefits and sickness policy of such a generosity that any insurance would have been wholly unnecessary;

iii) Furthermore the Claimant had pre-existing medical conditions which the Defendant failed to ascertain whether The Insurance remained valid or indeed appropriate to the Claimant’s circumstances.

 

b) The Claimant contends that the agent for the Defendant was fully aware of the Claimants circumstances and fraudulently passed incorrect details to the insurer to obtain these same Insurances from the insurer. The Claimant believes this grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing.

 

c) If the Court finds that incorrect details were not passed as a result of fraudulent behavior then the Claimant contends that incorrect details were passed to the insurer through the Defendants’ agents’ mistake as to facts.

 

d) The Claimant further contends that if the Insurance was applied correctly, that the Agreement was not executed in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

i) As the Insurance was in fact a charge for credit on the Conditional Sale Agreement, it could not also be part of the credit on the additional insurances agreement as under section 9 (4) CCA credit charges cannot be treated as credit even where time is given for their payments

ii) If the Insurance was not a charge for credit in respect of the Conditional Sale Agreement, as it was compulsory, it was a charge for credit on the additional insurances and under section 9 (4) CCA credit charges cannot be treated as credit

iii) For the reasons stated in either (i) or (ii) above, the agreement for additional insurances failed to state the correct amount of credit and did not comply with paragraph 2, schedule 6, which requires that regulated agreements contain as a prescribed term stating the correct amount of credit

iv) The agreement for additional insurances was therefore improperly executed under section 61 (1)(a) of the CCA.

 

 

4. Accordingly the Claimant asks:

 

a) The Court finds that the Defendant acted in a way grossly contravening ordinary principles of fair dealing and reopens the credit bargain to perform restitution to rectify the unjust enrichment performed, to the detriment of the Claimant by the sum of £6467.65 by conferring a benefit under an ineffective transaction.

 

b) If the Court is unable to perform restitution, then the Claimant seeks damages of £3467.65 by virtue of the Defendants agents’ actions, be they fraudulently or mistakenly, in obtaining the Insurances which offered no benefit to the Claimant.

 

 

c) Alternatively, the Claimant seeks damages of £3467.65 in regards to the Defendants clear breach of the Claimants human rights as prescribed by Article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 whereby the Defendants actions did cause the Claimant to suffer personal loss to the sum of £3467.65.

 

d) Court costs;

 

e) The Claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from various charging dates to 11th July 2006 of £564.08 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxx per day.

[Odie]

Can anyone tell me how I work out my daily rate for the N1?

[hellhasnofury]

Can anyone tell me how I work out my daily rate for the N1?

Hello Odie.

 

Here is the information to work out the daily rate of interest for your poc

 

Daily rate is your charges (without 8% interest) X 0.00022

 

Maybe pm One of the Mods I would pm Zootscoot or alanfromderby,(send them your thread link) as they are helping quite a bit on the ppi forum as regards to the legislation, to have a look at your poc before you send it. I am unsure about the last bit re human rights. Better to be safe

[Odie]

opps, too late. Filed my claim this afternoon with the courts. err.....oh well. Will soon find out one way or the other. Have any bank actually turned up to defend themselves in court on this yet?

[Odie]

Right, that's Barclays sorted. Back to Northern Rock!

 

FOS has been in touch a week ago after I filed a complaint with them and the Information Commissioners Office as Northern Rock had ignored all my letters.

 

Decided to call NR to find out what is going on (couldn't wait any longer). As I was informed, both the Information Commissioners Office and FOS had been in contact with NR day before and as a result all the info from my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) had been sent.

Received it today.

 

There were 2 loans. The second showed repeated calls to NR asking for PPI to be removed. (How dumb are they?) Phoned and asked under what circumstances would this have been refused and they couldn't answer. Said they would be sending an official offer through the post for PPI backdated to first removal request!

 

Not sure if I will accept yet as this was 1 year into the second loan. Think I should go for the lot as already this doesn't look good for them.

 

HOT TIP: Never ever send letters without recorded delivery. I needed this to prove I had written several times.

[hellhasnofury]

Right, that's Barclays sorted. Back to Northern Rock!

 

FOS has been in touch a week ago after I filed a complaint with them and the Information Commissioners Office as Northern Rock had ignored all my letters.

 

Decided to call NR to find out what is going on (couldn't wait any longer). As I was informed, both the Information Commissioners Office and FOS had been in contact with NR day before and as a result all the info from my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) had been sent.

Received it today.

 

There were 2 loans. The second showed repeated calls to NR asking for PPI to be removed. (How dumb are they?) Phoned and asked under what circumstances would this have been refused and they couldn't answer. Said they would be sending an official offer through the post for PPI backdated to first removal request!

 

Not sure if I will accept yet as this was 1 year into the second loan. Think I should go for the lot as already this doesn't look good for them.

 

HOT TIP: Never ever send letters without recorded delivery. I needed this to prove I had written several times.

 

Hello Odie,

 

Excellent work your doing there, isn't it great when you catch them out.

 

I agree with you, go for the whole lot:D

[Odie]

Just an update. Still not heard from Northern Rock, think they are waiting for FOS ruling.

 

Not heard from local court yet ref Barclays Bank either. It was filed on 4th December 07 and Barclays had till 27th Dec 07 to reply. I have heard nothing. What do I do now?

[Odie]

Ok, think I have answered my own question:

I can now ask the court to enter judgement using my initial request!

Would the court have told me if Barclays had submitted a defence as Barclays have sent me nothing?

[alanfromderby]

Generally they send a copy of the defence along with an allocation questionnaire. I would give the court a ring on Monday to see if a defence has been filed - if not then you can apply for judgement to be entered.

[Odie]

Update: I went to the Court today to file for Judgement. The clerk said Barclays had not filed a defence yet (unless is was in their 'to do' tray today). She reckoned 5 days and we should have a judgement. Does this sound right to anyone?

 

Just hope my POC is up to scratch now!

[alanfromderby]

That is about right - as the file has to go to the judge, he then passes it back to the administrators to complete the paperwork. HOWEVER, be warned that if a defence is filed in the next couple of days the court will accept it, and not enter judgement.

 

It is VERY frustrating when that happens - but if they didn't do that you could end up with the claim being delayed a couple of months pending a set-aside hearing.

 

Hopefully this won't happen - but experience has told me that nothing is certain until you see the paperwork.

[Odie]

Update: Phoned the court and judgement has been found in our favour. However, the clerk said that barclays can ask the case to be 'set aside' while they 'get themselves sorted'. Anyone got any idea what this means?

[alanfromderby]

Exactly what it says on the tin unfortunately.

 

Provided you have a good reason, and that it is done reasonably quickly, you can ask for a default judgement to be cancelled, and then file a defence. It is very frustrating - but administrative foul-up is usually accepted as a reasonable excuse.

 

I did warn of this in my last post.

[Odie]

Yes you did. Thank you for expalining it to me. Outrageous isn't it that Barclays can file a defence over 20 days after they were supposed to. It makes a mockery of the court imo!

[alanfromderby]

They may just settle - but if they do apply for a set-aside post here and I will advise further.