MBNA PPI Unsecured Loans Eyes Wide Shut

[banker_rhymes_with]

Deleted...

Edited July 4, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Too many Trolls on CAG, too little support to fight them.

[tonycee]

Hi.

Dont be to hard on yourself, none of us are asking about PPI because we have nothing better to do.

Yes i think you have a good chance of getting your money back.

Of course, they wont agree, so be prepared for a challenge.

 

Like any claim of any sort, you must be in possession of the facts, or you will waste a lot of time.

 

You are right to start with a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request).

Adapt it to request a copy of the credit agreements, copies of the figures used for settlements, a copy of the master insurance policy, transcripts of their "correct" selling proceedures.

 

Anything you think you might need.

 

You might want to start a new thread for other claims.

Its less confusing.

 

Good Luck

TC.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Deleted...

Edited July 4, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Too many Trolls on CAG, too little support to fight them.

[hellhasnofury]

Hello FUWW,

 

Glad to see you are starting off with a stratagy. These matter are better if you take your time and get it write to start off with.

 

Irresponsible lending for unjust enrichment springs to mind here, I think these companies attend/run courses of consumer psyhocology and know exactly how to reel customers in. It gives you a sense of being someone special and I know because it worked on me:lol:

 

Thoroughly read all the terms and condition on the ppi policy, that is if you have them. Look for thing like how much they will pay out and how long for. It is usually not for a long time and not that much. and if at all with you being self employed.

 

The other thing to look into is your credit agreement and how they applied the ppi and ppi interest. They are not allowed to include it in the total charge for credit. I will try to find the info for you to read.

[hellhasnofury]

Here is the info from Peterbard

 

Total Charge for Credit

 

I think many of who have been working with the above for a while forget how difficult it was to get our heads around this in the beginning so what I have attempted to do here is an introduction to the subject.

 

I have found that incorrect TCCs can be responsible for a large percentage of agreement being incorrectly executed and, in many cases the cause of unenforceability, especially in older credit agreements.

 

When you repay a loan whether it be credit card, fixed sum, hire purchase or whatever you agree to pay it back in instalments over a period of time.

 

If you look at what you repay you will see it falls into distinct categories

1) The amount you borrowed

2) The deposit (in the case of hire purchase to buy a car for instance)

3) Any charges that you had to pay in order to get the loan.

 

The sum of the above form the TAP (Total Amount Payable)

 

The last category (3) consists of the Total Charge for credit.

 

TOTAL CHARGE for CREDIT consists of any monies that you contractually agreed to pay in order to procure the loan. It Includes;

• The interest charged on the loan
  
• Any setting up fees charged by the creditor
  
• Any insurance that was conditional on you getting the loan (if you didn’t buy they wouldn’t give you the loan)
  
• The final purchase element on a hire purchase agreement
  
• Any brokerage charges
  
• Any attached agreements necessary to the purchase of the loan

(An exhaustive list of charges that should be included in the TCC are contained in the TCC regulations 1980)

 

The consumer Credit Act 1974 section 9(4) says that,” (4). For the purposes of this Act, an item entering into the total charge for credit shall not be treated as credit even though time is allowed for its payment.”

So for a start we see that if one of these items appeared as part of the amount loaned it would contravene the Act.

 

Unenforceability

 

Apart from breaching the act there are other consequences for the creditor who gets this wrong. The main one is the amount loaned or credit, this as you know is a prescribed term and if missing or incorrect would render all agreements made before the 6th of April 2007 unenforceable.

 

If even one of the items listed above where to end up contained the amount loaned (Credit) then the total figure would be incorrect by that amount, and render the agreement unenforceable.

 

 

APR

 

Lastly I better mention the TCC in relation to the APR quoted on the agreement.

The perceived cost the loan can be calculated by using;

The amount you loaned,

The time taken to repay it and

The amount of interest you pay

This would give you the interest quoted in the agreement, however this would not include the total cost of the loan as it would leave out all the other charges that you have had to pay in order to get it.

The APR calculates its value by using the TCC instead of just the interest thus including all the charges and giving a truer picture of what the loan actually costs you

 

As you can imagine there are many other aspect to the TCC that I have not mentioned here but there are extremely good OFT pamphlets on the subject on there website and the full low-down is contained within the TCC regs 1980. I have not seen these available on line and had to buy mine maybe someone reading this knows a better source.

 

Best regards

Peter

 

See what you think:D

[banker_rhymes_with]

Deleted...

Edited July 4, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Too many Trolls on CAG, too little support to fight them.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Deleted...

Edited July 4, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Too many Trolls on CAG, too little support to fight them.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Deleted...

Edited July 4, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Too many Trolls on CAG, too little support to fight them.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Deleted...

Edited July 4, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Too many Trolls on CAG, too little support to fight them.

[babygirl10873]

i have never had the pleasure i dont think. i have had that many cards not sure you they are rearly with you think their with one person then find out its someone totally different. A + L are top of my list. i ran into financal difficulties when partner left me with all the bills been paying them off at 20 a month they gave me a default and then added 5 years of charges to final figure so probley be paying them till the next millenium but have also had cards i think insurance and so on. going to check it out so i can get something yes i know probley to give them back.

 

but will check out if i have any MBNA what does it stand for may then have idea if have had dealings with them.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Deleted...

Edited July 4, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Too many Trolls on CAG, too little support to fight them.

[crugga]

i have never had the pleasure i dont think. i have had that many cards not sure you they are rearly with you think their with one person then find out its someone totally different. A + L are top of my list. i ran into financal difficulties when partner left me with all the bills been paying them off at 20 a month they gave me a default and then added 5 years of charges to final figure so probley be paying them till the next millenium but have also had cards i think insurance and so on. going to check it out so i can get something yes i know probley to give them back.

 

but will check out if i have any MBNA what does it stand for may then have idea if have had dealings with them.

Think a fair few use mbna, mines a Abby card which is mbna and my mother has 1 which is a completely different name but is mbna.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Deleted...

Edited July 4, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Too many Trolls on CAG, too little support to fight them.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Deleted...

Edited July 4, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Too many Trolls on CAG, too little support to fight them.

[lizzy40]

Hi

 

I was posting on Circles11 thread but as your complaint is identical to mine I didn't want to hi jack and thought I'd better join your post. Ive got one PPI back but my next one isn't going to be as easy as if the first one was!

 

I will read through your threads and get back to you in the next couple of days.

 

Lizzy

[banker_rhymes_with]

Deleted...

Edited July 4, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Too many Trolls on CAG, too little support to fight them.

[alanalana]

Hello BRW,

I have a claim started against RBS.

I have been following your thread and your advice to others in similar PPI situations. Like the Humour.

I have seen somewhere in my endeavours to become a fully qualified Legal expert an item re banks using refinancing of earlier loans in an effort to get even more bonuses/Profits. It seems that banks havaing access to a great deal of your financial information. ie salary, direct debits, standing orders, overdrafts, credit card payments etc are in an ideal position to stalk you for the ideal time to pounce with a "this is just a friendly call to see if we can help you with your account etc etc" They know when you are in a bit of difficulty and the "can we help with refinance to consolidate your existing loan with PPI and your credit card and your overdraft"

 

this has happened to me 5 times since 2000 and I have only become aware of the PPI issue through this site and MoneySavingExpert in the last 14 months.

 

I will find the item and post to see if it can be used in your argument against MBNA.#

 

UNFAIR RELATIONSHIPS

44. Sections 19-22 repeal and replace sections 137-140 of the 1974 Act which

empowered the Court to reopen an ‘extortionate credit bargain’. A bargain was

‘extortionate’, if at the time the agreement was made, it required the debtor to make

payments which were grossly exorbitant or otherwise grossly contravened ordinary

principles of fair dealing. In coming to its conclusions the court was required to

consider evidence produced concerning specific factors relevant to prevailing interest

rates, the debtor (e.g. age, experience or degree of financial pressure) and creditor

(e.g. accepted risk having regard to value of security).

45. The amended provisions will enable a court to consider whether the

relationship between the creditor and debtor arising out of that agreement is unfair to

the debtor because of the terms of the agreement, the way in which the agreement is

operated by the creditor or any other thing done or not done by or on behalf of the

creditor before or after the agreement was made. The court may take into account all

matters it thinks relevant relating to the creditor and debtor in making its assessment.

The court is provided with a broad range of remedies under new section 140B to

address the unfairness.

These notes refer to the Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c.14)

which received Royal Assent on 30 March 2006

15

Section 19: Unfair relationships between creditors and debtors

46. Section 19 inserts a new section 140A after section 140 of the 1974 Act.

Section 140A(1) enables a court to make an order under the new section 140B,

inserted into the 1974 Act by section 20 (see below) if it finds that the relationship

between the creditor and the debtor arising out of a credit agreement, or that

agreement taken with any related agreement, is unfair to the debtor. A relationship

may be unfair to the debtor because of one or more of the following:

• any of the terms of the agreement or any related agreement;

• the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under

the agreement or any related agreement;

• any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor (whether

occurring before or after the making of the agreement or any related

agreement).

47. The court may take into account all matters it thinks relevant (including

matters relevant to the debtor and to the creditor) in determining whether a

relationship is unfair. This may include anything done or not done on behalf of or in

relation to the creditor’s associates or former associates (as defined by section 184 of

the 1974 Act).

48. Section 140A does not apply to agreements that are exempt under section

16(6C) of the 1974 Act. Section 16(6C) exempts consumer credit agreements secured

on land that are regulated by FSA under FSMA.

Section 20: Powers of the court in relation to unfair relationships

49. Section 20 inserts a new section 140B after the new section 140A (inserted

into the 1974 Act by section 19). Section 140B sets out the types of orders that a

court may make in relation to any determination that a relationship between a creditor

and a debtor is unfair.

Section 21: Interpretation of ss.140A and 140B of the 1974 Act

50. Section 21 inserts a new section 140C after the new section 140B (inserted

into the 1974 Act by section 20). The new section 140C defines the types of

agreements that are covered by sections 140A and 140B. Any agreement that

involves the provision of credit to an individual, whether or not regulated by the 1974

Act (except as specified (see paragraph 48 above)), is covered. The sections also

cover, through the definition of “related agreement”, the practice where the creditor

enters into successive credit agreements with a debtor for the purpose, for example, of

increasing the total amount of the debt or obtaining multiple fees from the debtor for

setting up each loan.

Taken from this link

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2006/en/ukpgaen_20060014_en.pdf

 

 

aa

[banker_rhymes_with]

Deleted...

Edited July 4, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Too many Trolls on CAG, too little support to fight them.

[alanalana]

Hello again BRW,

 

Seems like you are getting a plan together.

 

I was fortunate enough to have kept carbon copies of my CCAs and being much in the same boat as yourself with two loans with Direct Line (part of the RBoS empire). Then RBoS step in to help with a really good APR loan and PPI followed by a second and a third with perfect timing. They call you so the approach is unsolicited. unasked: not asked for; "unasked advice"; "unsolicited junk mail"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - Definition in context

 

Like your own case any figure shown on the statements on refinance show a rebate on the loan but there is no apportionment to PPI or the Interest applied to it. My guess is, it would be be peanuts.

 

Each of my CCAs show they have included the Interest on the PPI premiums as part of the Total Charge for Credit TCC which basically If I understand it correctly contravenes the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as the CCAs I hold show the PPI as optional. I believe this renders the CCA unenforceable and if it is, then it is worthless, and if it is worthless then why should I have paid for it. Refund please!

I have listed some details in my own thread taken from the Office of Fair Trading. Post 15 on this link.

alanalana PPI claim against RBS (looking for some help) please

 

Good luck with your action

 

aa

[lizzy40]

You guys have accumulated so much great information within this thread.

 

It is so important to get all information correctly put together before making complaint.

 

A couple of points I would like some help with and that is:

On my T & C document under self employedment it says " you must be paying class 2 national insurance", what happens if your not paying class 2 National Insurance or you are exempt?

 

The second point I would like help with is, when checking my agreement (is this the document which list all the payments interest and total amount to pay monthly? well this document lists my old PO box address now this address was cancelled over 7 years ago and the loan with PPI was taken out in 2003, I was wondering why I never get any statements for this loan account? So I haven't a clue how much I have paid and how much is still outstanding. My business account statments manage to get to the right address, they are so incompetent.

 

When you read everyone plight on how they have been miss sold or a better word miss treated, it makes me feel so cross with myself for not being more aware and taking the time to look documents and T & C over but when your self employed and you need the money its the last thing on ones mind.

 

Also when dealing with high street banks you feel that they will treat you fairly and honestly and you are getting the best advice. That just doesn't seem to be the case.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Deleted...

Edited July 4, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Too many Trolls on CAG, too little support to fight them.

[lizzy40]

Thanks BRW I will start my own thread and use your's to cross reference with.

 

lets hope with everyones knowledge we will crack the self employed PPI mis leading policies!!!!

 

Thanks.

 

Lizzy

[banker_rhymes_with]

Deleted...

Edited July 4, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Too many Trolls on CAG, too little support to fight them.

[alanalana]

Hello BRW,

More info for you, not sure if you can use it or not. Check out my links thread. links aaaand this link.

 

Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083

 

may give your more ammunition.

 

regards

 

aa

[banker_rhymes_with]

Deleted...

Edited July 4, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Too many Trolls on CAG, too little support to fight them.