Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We need to see the actual document from the IAS where it is written - "The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again." You can't just type it up yourself. At the hearing in July or August or whenever the judge will have two Witness Statements. One from Bank's director says you never made a second appeal. You say you did make a second appeal and the IAS concluded that payment was made. The judge will immediately twig that either you or the director is lying.  But who? Fail to show the documentation form the IAS and instead just produce something you've typed yourself will make it look like you just made up the appeal and you are lying and you will lose the case. Please let us see what the IAS adjudicator sent.
    • I used to have a retail outlet in London selling my husband's photography.  We also had a co-op with staff so they weren't directly employed by me, but I paid for the other overheads etc.  When my husband died, I carried on as usual for a while but then I became ill and moved quite far away so logistically was becoming very difficult.  I came to an arrangement (verbal) with one of the guys I trusted, that I would send him the images to print and sell as normal, and I wouldn't take any money, as a short term solution until I got back on my feet and worked out the best way to do things. He would pay all the  rent, insurance etc... Over a year later, not able to give things away for free anymore,  I drew up a contract as a wholesale agreement, so I would get everything printed and sent to him and I would invoice his for what he ordered. I noticed form the beginning that he wasn't ordering enough or frequently enough to be making any money, and was suspicious he was doing his own orders on the sly and ordering just enough from me to keep my happy.  I checked with my printer, which I've been with for 20 years, and he sad he wasn't getting orders for my images from anyone else. I emailed a few other printers to ask them to keep a look out for some images but I soon realised this would be impossible to police.  The only option really would be to buy a print from him and check the stamp on the back of it.  I finally managed to get hold of on the prints on sale, and sure enough, he did not order it through me.   In the contract he signed in 2022 it explicitly states that he must destroy all files I had previously sent him etc etc so e is in breach of that.  When I drew up the contract, I was careful to make sure it was legally binding, but before I let rip at him, I need to know where I stand.  The contract is here: PARTIES This WHOLESALE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made effective as of 30th June, 2022, by and between ############################## The Supplier and the Client, collectively referred to as the "Parties," hereby agree to the following terms: TERMS AND CONDITIONS SALES OF GOODS The Supplier agrees to provide the following goods to the Client (“Goods”): Description of Goods ################################# Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b BOTH PARTIES AGREE: The Client purchases the Goods through the Supplier directly, and agrees to delete/destroy any previously held digital images (Goods) owned by the Supplier, and agrees not to use any such files for monetary gain, outside of this agreement, either directly or through a third party from immediate effect of this agreement. The Client purchases the other materials necessary for resale of the Goods independently of this agreement. The Client shall have exclusive rights for resale of Goods at ###########, and also with permission, as a retailer of the Goods elsewhere, provided that there is no conflict of interest between the Supplier and the Client. The Client is free to decide their own retail prices, for the Goods. The Supplier shall use #####  to provide the printed Goods on Fujifilm Crystal Archive paper, with Lustre finish, and will not use any other Printer unless #### cease to trade, without prior approval from the Client. The Supplier shall not impose restrictions on size or frequency of orders made by the Client. The prices provided by the Supplier shall not increase for a minimum of 3 years, unless the prices of the raw materials rise, in which case the client will be informed immediately. Any discounts/promotional prices of raw materials shall be passed on to the Client by the Supplier, and the invoice will show adjustments for this, as well as credit for return postage of any damaged goods. This agreement can be terminated by the Client without notice; the Supplier must give notice of no less than 90 days, unless the terms of the agreement are breached, in which case, the agreement can be terminated with immediate effect. PAYMENT Orders must be paid for upon receipt of invoice, via Bank transfer: ######### Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b DELIVERY AND INSPECTIONS All orders received by 12.00am (midnight) shall be processed by the Supplier the following working day and delivery of order shall arrive in accordance with the Royal Mail schedule, or DPD, should express delivery be requested. The Client shall be liable for the delivery charge which shall be added to the invoice. The Goods will be delivered to the address specified by the Client. The Client shall be provided with order tracking, and should any problems arise with the ordering system or the couriers (Royal Mail, DPD), the Client shall be informed without delay of any such issues. The Client will inspect the Goods and report any defects or damage to the Goods in transit as soon as possible upon receipt of Goods, and will retain damaged Goods for return to Supplier for refund/replacement. GENERAL PROVISIONS CONFIDENTIALITY The prices of the Goods and other information contained in this Agreement is confidential and will not be disclosed by either party unless with prior written consent of the other party. INDEMNIFICATION The Client indemnifies the Supplier from any claims, liabilities, and expenses made by any third party vendors or customers of the Client. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with UK Law. ACCEPTANCE Both parties understand and accept the wholesale arrangement stipulated under this Agreement. Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed this Wholesale Agreement as of the day and year set forth above.   Signed by us both electronically.   I haven't broached any of this yet, and I am looking for some advice about what action to take.  The main issue I've got is that he has still go those images.  If I terminate the contract, I will need to know that he no longer has those images and I can't think of a bulletproof way to do this. I'm thinking I might tell him I will continue with the contract but ask for a  sum in damages and say that if I find out he's still doing it down the line I will terminate the contract and sue him for damages. The damages side of things I'm not sure how it would work as he is self employed, and I'm positive he doesn't declare all of his earnings to HMRC, in order to find out how much I have lost, would the court demand to go through his tax self assessments?  I'm not sure how to proceed with this, I don't want to lose that place as an outlet as it is in a prime spot in London, which is why I let him have those images in the first place as I would have had to pull out altogether at that point.  I am regretting it somewhat now though.  Please help.
    • I cannot locate anything in my paper work that states 2 payments were made? Perhaps you could point this out? In reply from IAS it states "The ticketing data has been attached" nothing was sent to me. I made a response to the IAS all this was done online
    • Thanks again for your responses. The concern I have here, is that freeholder of the land (a company, who presumably would have been the ones to have initially instructed PPM to manage the parking here), will have proof of exactly how long the vehicle was on site for, as the driver was meeting operatives from that company on a separate matter. On this basis, if the matter was to get to court, I feel all the other technicalities about signage, size of signage/font, lack of start/finish times, will not be enough to have any case dropped? This PCN was brought up to the freeholder but they have advised that PPM will not waive this charge. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

PPI amalgamated into loan repayment?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5081 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Yes, thanks, Bazaar.

 

I'm really going to enjoy this one and I will keep you all up to date.

 

Ok, cue music!

 

Bom b-bom-bom, b-bom-bom, b-bom-bom...when the going get's tough, the tough get going! (thx, Marlin)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Here I took that little bit from the linked pdf, have a read.:)

http://www.stjameschambers.co.uk/PPI%20Nathan%20Banks.pdf

 

The link seems ok for virus.

 

thats a good doc!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read this one flyboy, FOS decision on a pre 2005 agreement. It explains their logic in upholding the complaint:

 

http://www.financialombudsman.com/publications/technical_notes/omb-decision-C.pdf

Dipply75

 

I am in no way a legal advisor and only speak from my own experiences and the helpful advice of those in the same boat! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read this one flyboy, FOS decision on a pre 2005 agreement. It explains their logic in upholding the complaint:

 

http://www.financialombudsman.com/publications/technical_notes/omb-decision-C.pdf

 

 

Hello dipply another good link same as before would you mind if I put it into my links thread in the stickies it may just give caggers hope on the FOS route, especially as it is pre FSA regulations. :-)

 

That way it will not get lost as threads close. Thanks

 

aa

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

------------------------------------------------

Bank charge successes:

Halifax - Full settlement incl interest.

HSBC - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 75% of claim.

RBS - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 70% of claim.

2 ongoing claims for bank charges with HSBC with more to come. (Supreme Court ruling could have upset these claims) They did :mad:

PPI Successes

PPI 4 settlements on 9 loans. FOS involvement on 7 added on the 8 % Statutory interest another 30% to both.

2 claims settled in full with LV without FOS involvement.

2 claims settled in full with HSBC without FOS involvement

 

PPI Claims ongoing with:

Cap one Now with the FOS

Barclays. Paid up today 24/04/10 cheque received for over £4,500 and in the bank.

LTSB still have to decide on this as their SAR production was abysmal. Papers data mixed up documents missing etc

 

1 Complaint not upheld by FOS they said it was ICO issue. Complaint upheld by ICO. See this..

Post 290 from

***RBS PPI Claim Long fight but, WON***

 

Please do not PM me for advice as it may be sometime before I can respond.

 

Keep at them. Do not give way and do not accept all they tell you, they will delay and stall for as long as they can to prevent repaying you your mis-sold PPI.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

done many thanks dipply :D

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

------------------------------------------------

Bank charge successes:

Halifax - Full settlement incl interest.

HSBC - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 75% of claim.

RBS - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 70% of claim.

2 ongoing claims for bank charges with HSBC with more to come. (Supreme Court ruling could have upset these claims) They did :mad:

PPI Successes

PPI 4 settlements on 9 loans. FOS involvement on 7 added on the 8 % Statutory interest another 30% to both.

2 claims settled in full with LV without FOS involvement.

2 claims settled in full with HSBC without FOS involvement

 

PPI Claims ongoing with:

Cap one Now with the FOS

Barclays. Paid up today 24/04/10 cheque received for over £4,500 and in the bank.

LTSB still have to decide on this as their SAR production was abysmal. Papers data mixed up documents missing etc

 

1 Complaint not upheld by FOS they said it was ICO issue. Complaint upheld by ICO. See this..

Post 290 from

***RBS PPI Claim Long fight but, WON***

 

Please do not PM me for advice as it may be sometime before I can respond.

 

Keep at them. Do not give way and do not accept all they tell you, they will delay and stall for as long as they can to prevent repaying you your mis-sold PPI.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok i got it now ( boy am i slow on this one)

 

just incase why folks wondering why intersted in this thread but Fly is in ecosse and have been on a few threads of his and FLy , I asked alan to come to the thread to clarify things as alan is brill at putting things into plain english for us folks that struggle with it :D no offense meant or thrown

 

ok i see where you and dippy are coming from, the fooking thing is confusing and poorly laid out.

 

 

i was right in a way but they are wrong in the layout!

 

yeah yeah yeah yeah

 

Ida x

  • Haha 1

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read this one flyboy, FOS decision on a pre 2005 agreement. It explains their logic in upholding the complaint:

 

http://www.financialombudsman.com/publications/technical_notes/omb-decision-C.pdf

 

 

Good one, Dipply. Much appreciated.A nd thanks again, Ida and Alan.

 

Just popped in for a quick fly look; will check all this again at length in a.m.

 

Bless yas all.:wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few early morning thoughts.

 

I didn't post the CCA letter last night as I've had a change of plan. Rather than pussy-foot around with them, I intend to write, pointing out:-

 

a) The amalgamation of the PPI into the loan itself. (CCA 1974 s.9(4))

b) The PPI not optional, being a condition to the loan. (mis-selling)

c) The mandatory inclusion of PPI to be seen as a further cost, or charge. (mis-selling)

d) The inclusion of the admin fee into the loan itself.(Citing First County Trust v. Wilson case)

e) Lack of figure detailing total amount of credit.(CCA 1974 s.8(2) (unsure)

f) Lack of figure detailing total charge for credit.(CCA 1974 s.20(1))

 

The PPI issues will be backed up by the St. James Chambers link posted here and the FOS decision on pre-2005 agreements.

 

How does all that sound? Anything missed or that is questionable and should be removed?

 

As stated, I don't want to stop paying the instalments. not yet, anyway. I think it's best to just confront them with the questionable validity of the whole agreement and hit them with CCA 1974 s.65 and s.127. Doubtless they will prevaricate (as always), and even though I have c acopy of the agreement on file, I'll give them the chance to submit the docs via s.77, though the PPI isn't governed by such, as I see it.

Edited by FlyboyAgain
general editing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoaaah.... cold feet time! I have just viewed the Rankine Case pdf for the first time, after doing a bit of sniffing around on s.127, etc. What a nightmare!

 

There's a lot wrong with my agreement - a heck of a lot wrong with it - but s.65 has just put up a red flag for me. Am now unsure how to proceed.

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c. 39) - Statute Law Database

 

Any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as you say youre not going to stop payments because of the dodgy agreement just yet, so you can hold on that until you feel more comfortable. IMO I dont see any reason why you cannot proceed with a claim for PPI. That will keep things seperate for you at least

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoaaah.... cold feet time! I have just viewed the Rankine Case pdf for the first time, after doing a bit of sniffing around on s.127, etc. What a nightmare!

 

There's a lot wrong with my agreement - a heck of a lot wrong with it - but s.65 has just put up a red flag for me. Am now unsure how to proceed.

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c. 39) - Statute Law Database

 

Any ideas?

 

 

That means if you stop paying and they start chasing you up, then they must take you to Court and win.

 

Bascially, only a Judge can enforce their claim. But, if your so sure, then he won`t be able to anyway, as the agreement would be unenforceable.

If I have helped or made you laugh in any way in your hour of need, then please click my scales <<<<<<<<<< ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question. Doing the draft letter right now. Should I mention the intention of cancelling the PPI instalments or will that throw the whole thing into a default?

 

They cannot IMO put the loan into default because you wish to cancel a mis-sold product which appears to have been hidden within the terms of the CCA.

 

One presumes you did not ask for PPI and that you were never informed fully on what implications there would be if PPI were attached then later cancelled.

 

Your CCA seems to be kind of unique. I assume you have put this through other areas for advice?

 

aa

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

------------------------------------------------

Bank charge successes:

Halifax - Full settlement incl interest.

HSBC - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 75% of claim.

RBS - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 70% of claim.

2 ongoing claims for bank charges with HSBC with more to come. (Supreme Court ruling could have upset these claims) They did :mad:

PPI Successes

PPI 4 settlements on 9 loans. FOS involvement on 7 added on the 8 % Statutory interest another 30% to both.

2 claims settled in full with LV without FOS involvement.

2 claims settled in full with HSBC without FOS involvement

 

PPI Claims ongoing with:

Cap one Now with the FOS

Barclays. Paid up today 24/04/10 cheque received for over £4,500 and in the bank.

LTSB still have to decide on this as their SAR production was abysmal. Papers data mixed up documents missing etc

 

1 Complaint not upheld by FOS they said it was ICO issue. Complaint upheld by ICO. See this..

Post 290 from

***RBS PPI Claim Long fight but, WON***

 

Please do not PM me for advice as it may be sometime before I can respond.

 

Keep at them. Do not give way and do not accept all they tell you, they will delay and stall for as long as they can to prevent repaying you your mis-sold PPI.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does seem to be unique, doesn't it?

 

I am more than confident that the agreement itself is unenforceable and am merely going through the motions with asking for the CCA s77 as I have copies here alreday but hold nothing detailing the PPI. Not a sausage.

 

I am thinking about contacting a financial law firm up here. This is too big a bird and I need the backing of a big gun to blow it out of the sky.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think I've found a calculator.

 

Something's puzzling me: I've always thought that this PPI was a monthly one, yet Alanalana above states that it is a single premium policy. Coul dit be seen as a 'single' because of tis amalgamation into the debt? or is it, in fact, a monthly? Here's the link to the document again:-

 

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/kakkadoo/Scans/TiedLoan1014.jpg

 

Furthermore, I haven't cancelled the PPI repayments yet. By having not done so, would the bank see that as an acceptance of the PPI even though my recent letter informs them of my intention to reclaim? I did ask them for T&Cs to the PPI (along with the s.77 on the loan itself) but meyb I should have SARd them instead on the PPI?

Edited by FlyboyAgain
additions
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's the problem with this agreement - it's as clear as mud! Prescribed Terms are completely missing - there is no clue as to what your PPI is or isn't - how much your policy is, if interest is being charged etc...this should all be clearly stated.

 

You should SAR them for everything - loan details, PPI details inc. cost, type, commission, copies of the security, everything as I think you have several areas of attack here. Get all that in and then you can work out how to proceed.

 

For the PPI specifically you want to know:

 

Is it monthly or single premium

Is interest being charged

What term is the PPI (is it only 5 years on a 10 year loan?)

Who is the underwriter

What commission was paid

How much Insurance Premium Tax was paid (will explain that one later ;))

Copy of the policy and copy of your application asking for it.

 

I will have to get time to get a close look but I think, as you do, that this agreement is crap! I don't think even a court could enforce it....but let that be double checked!:)

Dipply75

 

I am in no way a legal advisor and only speak from my own experiences and the helpful advice of those in the same boat! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Ok, here's an update.

 

No response to the CCA letters but the SAR response arrived today. I must amit there's not a lot of paperwork pertaining to this loan and nothing has been submitted on the PPI!! The only things they've sent are:-

 

 

  • a copy of the application form, signed by wife & I
  • a copy of the agrrement, signed by wife & I and bank witness and bank lawyer
  • the standard security document (tying the house to the loan)
  • a direct debit instruction
  • a loan statement detailing payments from inception to date, in which the b******s ask us to call them if we are anticipating an early settlement!!!!

Nowhere is there a breakdown or indeed any paperwork pertaining to the PLI!! The only mention of it is in the loan application form, wher I, as 1st applicant, have signed the 'yes' box. A scan is available here:-

 

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/kakkadoo/Scans/TiedLoanApp022.jpg

 

Any comments?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Flyboy,

 

That is an application form. Do you have an agreement.

 

The application does not state the total amount payable, the monthly payments and has no reference as to how much the PPI actually costs, and how they worked out that figure.

 

Going off that document, you should also have an agreement

If I have helped or made you laugh in any way in your hour of need, then please click my scales <<<<<<<<<< ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's the problem with this agreement - it's as clear as mud! Prescribed Terms are completely missing - there is no clue as to what your PPI is or isn't - how much your policy is, if interest is being charged etc...this should all be clearly stated.

 

You should SAR them for everything - loan details, PPI details inc. cost, type, commission, copies of the security, everything as I think you have several areas of attack here. Get all that in and then you can work out how to proceed.

 

For the PPI specifically you want to know:

 

Is it monthly or single premium

Is interest being charged

What term is the PPI (is it only 5 years on a 10 year loan?)

Who is the underwriter

What commission was paid

How much Insurance Premium Tax was paid (will explain that one later ;))

Copy of the policy and copy of your application asking for it.

 

I will have to get time to get a close look but I think, as you do, that this agreement is crap! I don't think even a court could enforce it....but let that be double checked!:)

 

Am today asking them for the data on the PPI, for they've included nothing on it. At what point should I halt - if at all - the PPI payments, or should I just wait until I take them to court?

 

And why should I noise them up about Insurance premium tax? How is that relevant to my SAR?

Edited by FlyboyAgain
Addition
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...