Paintball v Magic Loans Ltd

[Paintball]

I currently have a loan with LMC (taken out 15/09/06) which includes a Single Premium amount of £4,326 in PPI added to the total amount owing on the loan. This PPI amount includes interest.

 

I have no recollection of actually agreeing to the PPI and have requested cancellation and reimbursement. Sterling Insurance who act as the Insurance Broker for LMC have corresponded with me and stated that I am entitled to a partial reimbursement; no actual refund, just a partial amount which is reduced from the total owing on the loan. The letter stated that this includes "incurred expenses" and "incurred risk".

 

I replied to Sterling requesting a breakdown of their costs to include risk and expenses and received a complaints procedure document Quel surprise!!!!

 

I have issued a complaint through the FSA and their reply followed on 22 February informing me that they will provide me with a response as soon as they can.

 

...

 

 

Razz

[hellhasnofury]

I currently have a loan with LMC (taken out 15/0/06) which includes a Single Premium amount of £4,326 in PPI which is added to the total amount owing on the loan. This PPI amount includes interest.

 

I have no recollection of actually agreeing to the PPI and have requested cancellation and reimbursement. Sterling Insurance who act as the Insurance Broker for LMC have corresponded with me and stated that I am entitled to a partial reimbursement; no actual refund, just a partial amount which is reduced from the total owing on the loan. The letter stated that this includes "incurred expenses" and "incurred risk".

 

I replied to Sterling requesting a breakdown of their costs to include risk and expenses and received a complaints procedure document Quel surprise!!!!

 

I have issued a complaint through the FSA and their reply followed on 22 February informing me that they will provide me with a response as soon as they can.

 

...

 

 

Razz

 

Hello Paintball

 

Just a quick question, have you referred a complaint through the FSA or the FOS, or both;) . With regards to the partial re-imbursement. They are refunding the unpaid ppi and interest into the balance of the loan, therefore reducing it. The part of the ppi and interest you have paid, should be returned to you, with contractual interest.

[Paintball]

Hi Helly..

 

Through the Financial Ombudsman Service complaints procedure. I understand what they have refunded to the balance of the loan, and am concerned now about the lack of reimbursement for the amount paid plus interest.

 

I can wait until the FOS makes its decision and gets back to me (hmm hmm, waiting patiently:rolleyes: ) or I can procede down the LBA and N1 route as I did with my Capital Bank PPI claim (blatant mis-selling to a student!!)

and claim/argue mis-selling ...

 

Painty x

 

 

[hellhasnofury]

Hi Helly..

 

Through the Financial Ombudsman Service complaints procedure. I understand what they have refunded to the balance of the loan, and am concerned now about the lack of reimbursement for the amount paid plus interest.

 

I can wait until the FOS makes its decision and gets back to me (hmm hmm, waiting patiently:rolleyes: ) or I can procede down the LBA and N1 route as I did with my Capital Bank PPI claim (blatant mis-selling to a student!!)

and claim/argue mis-selling ...

 

Painty x

 

 

 

Hello Painty

 

If you have put a complaint to the Fos they will investigate thoroughly, although I do believe they are rather busy, due to the consumer revolt:D They do take time, but I also believe that they are upholding 80% of mis-sold ppi complaints.

 

If you do the court route, this can also that some time, so its your call really.

 

I wish you good luck in your decision:D

 

Keep us posted

[Paintball]

Hello Painty

 

If you have put a complaint to the Fos they will investigate thoroughly, although I do believe they are rather busy, due to the consumer revolt:D They do take time, but I also believe that they are upholding 80% of mis-sold ppi complaints.

 

If you do the court route, this can also that some time, so its your call really.

 

I wish you good luck in your decision:D

 

Keep us posted

 

Thanks for the support ... I must admit I'm a bit of a 'Claim Whore'!! I usually proceed straight to the N1 route and no messing about, but on this occasion thought I'd give the old FOS a chance to do their bit on my behalf!

 

However, I'm twitching badly at the mo, partly because I've handed control over to another party and have to wait for their decision and don't have access to every stage of the process and partly a general sense of impatience!!

 

 

 

[Paintball]

As part of the FOS investigation process (lengthy!!) LMC have abdicated all responsibility for the selling of the PPI, referring me instead to the broker which was Oryen.

 

I have already received a partial reimbursement of the PPI which was less than half of the Single Premium sum added to the loan; £2119.74 from a total £4326.00 LMC have offset this amount against my monthly loan payments and have not taken any loan payments since December 2007.

 

They did not advise me that this was what they were going to do. I received no correspondence from them and only discovered this 'method' when I called them. As I stated to the Customer Services rep, they have done this "without my knowledge or consent" ...

 

I still have to decide whether I will be going for the full mis-selling of PPI and claiming this from Oryen in which case, I would be claiming the rest of the full amount not reimbursed by LMC.

 

Any suggestions anyone?

 

 

BTW, have almost won my case against HBOS (sued as Capital Bank) for return of mis-sold PPI, Judgment issued last week for full payment.

[Paintball]

Bump ...

[Paintball]

Bumpety bump ... anyone there?

[nicho1120]

i am in a similar situation to yourself. I wrote to sterling to ask them to cancel the single premium policy that was taken out with my initial loan. they sent me a cheque for 40% of the single premium. I wrote a letter to them to ask how they had arrived at the figure and they sent me a breakdown of what costs were incurred e.t.c. I don't believe that 40 % is a fair amount considering that I will be paying this ppi for the duration of the loan with interest added. I am not sure really what to do now. I have written to the broker that set the loan up and asked for DPA. I don't believe that i was told that the ppi only covered me for 3 years. Not received the info yet and the 40 days are near. Will get back to you when i have more info

[Paintball]

Nicho, you are a star Thanks for this response, it's exactly what has happened to me except that the T&C's for the PPI that I finally received after the FOS's intervention state that I'm entitled to 49% reimbursement.

 

However, I'm still unhappy with this for the reasons you state in your message and don't think it's fair that I'm still paying the premium in my monthly amount which includes interest. What I feel I need to do is work out what the interest is and how much that would add to the amount 'reimbursed'.

 

Watch this space and I'll be watching yours ...

 

P x

[nicho1120]

sterling gave me a breakdown on how they had arrived to the 40% figure. I am not sure whether it is worth going to the fos and complaining about the amount received.

[Paintball]

I've done that Nicho but they're stalling so my next step is to send a SAR to LMC and then claim the lot back based on mis-selling. I will need to claim it back from the broker, Oryen.

 

A tad complicated ...

 

 

Razz

[nicho1120]

shouldnt you be sending the SAR to your broker then ???

[Paintball]

i am in a similar situation to yourself. I wrote to sterling to ask them to cancel the single premium policy that was taken out with my initial loan. they sent me a cheque for 40% of the single premium. I wrote a letter to them to ask how they had arrived at the figure and they sent me a breakdown of what costs were incurred e.t.c. I don't believe that 40 % is a fair amount considering that I will be paying this ppi for the duration of the loan with interest added. I am not sure really what to do now. I have written to the broker that set the loan up and asked for Data Protection Act. I don't believe that i was told that the ppi only covered me for 3 years. Not received the info yet and the 40 days are near. Will get back to you when i have more info

I'm reviving my claim after a period of confusion with it. Noted your comments Nicho which mirror my own circumstances ...

shouldnt you be sending the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to your broker then ???

Yes, I should Nicho I have finally unearthed the original paperwork for the loan.

 

It was brokered by Magic Loans and I'm sending the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) today. I refuse to accept the 40% refund, was mis-sold PPI in the first place as Magic Loans did not follow FSA selling guidelines and Banking Code of good practice and did NOT treat me fairly, and I was not told that I would be paying the premium and interest for the duration of the loan once the three year period of the cover was ended. The latter amounts to concealment at the very least and misrepresentation at worst ...

 

 

The battle continues

[Paintball]

Received today the most arrogant response from Magic Loans regarding my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request).

 

To quote from the letter: "Our records show that you made a previous complaint about the sale of PPI and a comprehensive reply finding your complaint not to be upheld was issued to you on 25 February by my colleague X. Within this reply, it was clearly stated that you had a period of six months [...] to refer your complaint to the FOS if you were unhappy with the decision. You did not do so and [...] your complaint became time-barred and would not be accepted or investigated by the FOS if you escalated it to them now.

 

As a consequence of this there is no case to answer regarding the sale of PPI. Indeed, my colleague found there was no case to answer in the first instance. As your request under the Data Protection Act 1998 was clearly stated a directly linked to the sale of PPI, there is no reason to involve you in the expense of the request and I therefore enclose your cheque [...] "

 

Firstly, I never received a letter from Magic Loans in February and I have never contacted them before my SAR in September. I have always dealt with Sterling Insurance, the underwriter.

 

Today I called the FOS who began their investigation of the complaint in February for me and who are baffled by this response, in particular the time-barring, informing me that they'll be happy to continue investigating it on my behalf. The chap was also baffled by the refusal to comply with my SAR!!

 

I have informed the chap who sent the letter that his reponse is arrogant, that the case is NOT closed and that I have a legal right to the info they hold on me regardless of whether it relates to a complaint or any other issue.

[alanalana]

Hello Painty,

 

Received today the most arrogant response from Magic Loans regarding my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request).

 

To quote from the letter: "Our records show that you made a previous complaint about the sale of PPI and a comprehensive reply finding your complaint not to be upheld was issued to you on 25 February by my colleague X. Within this reply, it was clearly stated that you had a period of six months [...] to refer your complaint to the FOS if you were unhappy with the decision. You did not do so and [...] your complaint became time-barred and would not be accepted or investigated by the FOS if you escalated it to them now.

 

As a consequence of this there is no case to answer regarding the sale of PPI. Indeed, my colleague found there was no case to answer in the first instance. As your request under the Data Protection Act 1998 was clearly stated a directly linked to the sale of PPI, there is no reason to involve you in the expense of the request and I therefore enclose your cheque [...] " As you say most arrogant and condescending.

 

Assuming a tone of superiority, or a patronizing attitude

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/condescending

 

Firstly, I never received a letter from Magic Loans in February and I have never contacted them before my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) in September. I have always dealt with Sterling Insurance, the underwriter.

 

Today I called the FOS who began their investigation of the complaint in February for me and who are baffled by this response, in particular the time-barring, informing me that they'll be happy to continue investigating it on my behalf. The chap was also baffled by the refusal to comply with my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)!! And so another letter goes off to the Information Commissioners Office for Magic Loans failing to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

I have informed the chap who sent the letter that his reponse is arrogant, that the case is NOT closed and that I have a legal right to the info they hold on me regardless of whether it relates to a complaint or any other issue.

 

True fighting spirit as ever.:grin: Their letter is not funny but your response did make me smile:)

 

aa

[Paintball]

aa I was stottin' this morning when I read that letter. But chuckling afte I spoke to the nice young man at th FOS and definitely now

 

Now, in relation to your comment about another letter going off the the ICO about Magic Loans failing to comply with a SAR, can you direct me to another complaint for this co? Save me a bit of time trawling but happy to try anyway;)

 

Cheers

[hellhasnofury]

Hello Painty,

 

Well I never:eek:. the arrogance of this company, but I am sure you will reply with a suitable response:D pointing out the error of their ways

 

As you know Painty, It really is not up to them whether to respond, or not, to your legal request for information:mad: By law they must comply

 

I am sure that you will report them to the information commissioners office as to their conduct:grin:

 

Is it not great when they give themselves more rope to hang themselves.

 

Why are the being so defensive I wonder:-D Is there something in your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) that they do not want you to see

[alanalana]

Hello Painty,

 

As a consequence of this there is no case to answer regarding the sale of PPI. Indeed, my colleague found there was no case to answer in the first instance. As your request under the Data Protection Act 1998 was clearly stated a directly linked to the sale of PPI, there is no reason to involve you in the expense of the request and I therefore enclose your cheque [...] " As you say most arrogant and condescending.

 

 

Assuming a tone of superiority, or a patronizing attitude

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/condescending

 

 

 

I have been thinking about this bit of my post and have to post again to say I was wrong to put in the wiktionary result of cendescending as to do that was in itself condescending.

 

Sorry:)

 

I will look for a suitable complain for you to use for the ICO and post soon

 

aa

[alanalana]

Here you go Painty,

 

this was part of my response to a similar situation just fill in the relevant bits for your dates etc and use what you can. Long as my posts always are:D.

 

I would wish to point out that the information requested in my original letter Subject Access Request (S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)) dated xxxxxxxxx has not been forthcoming.

By law under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 7 sub section (1) ( c ) ( i ) and (ii) you are required to communicate to me in an intelligible form the information as requested within the requirements of the Act section 7 (2) (a) and (b), which as the data subject I have met.

 

 

I now must insist that you provide the following for ALL accounts or associated accounts that I as a Data Subject have held with your organization:

 

Full copies of all contracts which you believe exist or have existed between myself and your organization, including true copies of any documents you hold in support of the same.

A complete list of all transactions or statements relating to ALL of my Loan Accounts including all details of payment protection insurance premiums applicable to those accounts with your organization.

 

When I insist on the provision of all details, I take that to include all data applicable to me as a Data subject including the data on payment protection insurance (PPI) including the Terms and Conditions applicable to the insurance applied to the loans.

 

Copies of all documents which include any of my personal information including copies of any contracts or invoices, emails or computer records, or letters containing my personal information, or any records which relate to this information.

 

Full copies or transcripts of any correspondence in postal, email or any other format which you have entered into with any individual, organization or third party which contains my personal or financial information, or which pertains to me.

 

If you are then unable to trace the information on these loans then I will require the following action to be taken by your organisation.

 

Where any previous information or records held have been deleted or disposed of, the methods used to do so, including dates, certificates or references confirming details of destruction. Where you are unable to provide such certificates, please provide a declaration, signed by an authorised officer (preferably the Data Controller) of your company, confirming the dates and methods of destruction of this data.

 

Full hard copy print outs of my personal or financial information, held in a digital, magnetic or any other format which is held in any archives, backups or other storage devices / locations.”

To date I have not received this full information. I await the following:

1. Full details of PPI including the terms and conditions as applicable to the loans as detailed in my first request.

2. Full transcripts of all telephone conversations that have been recorded between your organisation and myself.

3. Full copies of all credit agreements and contracts between Magic Loans and myself.

4. Full copies of any and all postal or email correspondence.

 

If there is no information available then I will require written confirmation of this together with as stated before full details on your methods of erasure, disposal or destruction signed by an authorised officer of your company.

 

Failure to respond to this second request in a fully comprehensive and satisfactory manner within 14 days, will result in the submission of a formal complaint to the Information Commissioners Office detailing your failure to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. Which is a Legal Statute within the Law.

 

You can chop and change to suit their response to you but the Data Protection Act Sections do apply.

 

Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29)

 

You can confirm through this link.

 

aa;)

PS

have been a bit repetitive in some areas but it might get the message across if they read twice what you require.

Edited October 24, 2008 by alanalana
a PS added

[alanalana]

Hello Painty,

 

this is the link to complete an online complaint to the ICO.

 

Complaints about data protection policy - ICO

 

You can fill it in and submit and send any copies of letters you get either electronically if you scan and add or as in my case I copied and posted with covering letters.

 

aa

[Paintball]

Thanks aa

 

Magic Loans have until 11 November to comply with my SAR ...

[Paintball]

From my letter to them, Magic Loans have complied with my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), up to a point!!

 

They state that:

 

"We are presently unable to locate recordings of the telephone calls we made to you or you to us. In order to help us to locate and retrieve any telephone ranscripts you require, we shall need you to complete and return the enclosed the subject access telephony form giving as much detail as you can in terms of numbers, dates and times."

 

The form asks me for the exact date and time of the sales conversation. Erm, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it Magic Loans who are supposed to be providing me with this info, not vice versa? They have included a few nice forms detailing the calls made to me and comments made by the sales people, but suddently are not able to locate the sales call and content of this. Slight contradiction there?

 

Also attached with the letter is corespondence from Magic Loans from February 25 this year (which I had never received) informing me that they could not uphold my mis-selling complaint:

 

"I would advise you that I have reviewed the sales processes in place and documentation issued to you at the time of the sale and [...] feel that Magic Loans Limited did make you aware at various stages through the process that the insurance was optional."

 

Hmmm, no record of the sales call so how can this be stated with such certainty?

 

I have no recollection of any discussion about the overall suitability of the PPI product nor of true the cost of adding it to my loan compared to alternative options in the market place, nor is there any documentation to prove this took place.

 

Interestingly, no keyfacts document sent to me in the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) ...

 

Thoughts anyone on the Telephony SAR?

 

Edited November 18, 2008 by Paintball

[alanalana]

Hello Painty,

 

"We are presently unable to locate recordings of the telephone calls we made to you or you to us. In order to help us to locate and retrieve any telephone ranscripts you require, we shall need you to complete and return the enclosed the subject access (£10.00 fee required here) telephony form giving as much detail as you can in terms of numbers, dates and times."

 

The form asks me for the exact date and time of the sales conversation. Erm, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it Magic Loans who are supposed to be providing me with this info, not vice versa? (Yes) They have included a few nice forms detailing the calls made to me and comments made by the sales people, but suddently are not able to locate the sales call and content of this. Slight contradiction there? (RBS tried this with me ie supply the dates and times of the calls the name of the person you spoke to etc). I said I want recordings of transcripts of all calls made)

Also attached with the letter is corespondence from Magic Loans from February 25 this year (which I had never received) informing me that they could not uphold my mis-selling complaint:

 

"I would advise you that I have reviewed the sales processes in place and documentation issued to you at the time of the sale and [...] feel (They can feel all they want but feel is not proof) that Magic Loans Limited did make you aware at various stages through the process that the insurance was optional." (Without a Customer wants and needs questionnaire or a duty of care checklist and no recordings or transcripts of telephone conversations tell them to prove that they did make you aware). This is the usual fob off.

Hmmm, no record of the sales call so how can this be stated with such certainty? ( Good question maybe you could ask them:D)

 

I have no recollection of any discussion about the overall suitability of the PPI product nor of true the cost of adding it to my loan compared to alternative options in the market place, nor is there any documentation to prove this took place.

 

Interestingly, no keyfacts document sent to me in the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) ...

 

Thoughts anyone on the Telephony S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)? (You could point out that you sent the SAR with the Statutory fee asking them to supply data in line with the DPA 1998) You therefore require them to supply the information within the 40 day Statuted period. If that has passed then they are not complying with the LAW.

 

Painty you could also suggest that if any more of their letters require you to provide information you will require a fee before responding with the same negative result they seem to have given you.;-)

 

aa

[Paintball]

Haha aa, just the response I would have hoped for. Many thanks

 

I have begun to formulate my reponse. ML really are stinkers and have concealed, misinformed, and taken advantage of my (previous) lack of knowledge and understanding of PPI to add a product that has a whacking great cost attached to it, which had I known this at the time of taking out the loan, I would NEVER have gone ahead with ...

 

This claim is typifies what the FSA and the Competition Commission wish to do away with; PPI sold with poor sales practice as a Single Premium and the true cost of it and the loan not explained to the borrower!!!

 

I'm not so green now though so watch out ML, here I come with all guns blazing ...

 

 

:D