PPI amalgamated into loan repayment?

[FlyboyAgain]

Single Cover must equate to single premium which is a reason for mis-selling IMO

 

aa

 

 

I am mega busy with work right now and haven't had much time to get on here. Can you expand on the above, Alan?

 

Also, can anyone clarify the FO statement that PPI can be added into a loan? They told me this over the phone. I thought the had to be separate? That means I'm paying interest on the total amount and not two separate ones.

 

6 weeks to go until HBOS respond. If they ever do.

[FlyboyAgain]

Wow, feels odd being back on the site. A very busy Autumn/winter has taken me away from home. Must catch up on other threads.

 

Well HBoS blew the Ombudsman's complaint out, as I thought they might. I still will not let this lie and now need to go after them on the enforceability of the agreement which, as pointed out in the early parts of this thread, shows it to be the mess it is.

 

I am unsure about approching random solicitors over this but I do recall a post back in oct/Nov stating that 'honourable' firms - i.e., no shsrks - were now starting to take accept clients who may have a case. Can anybody point me in the direction?

 

Best for the new Year.

[FlyboyAgain]

And heres my argument,

Consequently, where (which appears frequently to be the case) a borrower was told at

the time of taking out a loan that the taking of PPI was a condition of the loan or that

the loan would not be granted without the inclusion of the PPI, then the PPI would be

classed as mandatory insurance under paragraph 4 of the 1980 regulations and should

form part of the charge for credit. If in such circumstances the PPI was included in the

amount of credit rather than the charge for credit then the agreement will fail to

comply with the 1983 Regulations and will be unenforceable and in the case of

agreements entered into prior to 6th April 2007, as the amount of credit is a prescribed

term, the agreement will be irredeemably unenforceable.

 

Can you expand on this? They have denied my claim (sent via the Ombudsman).

[FlyboyAgain]

How would I proceed with this to court, using the unenforcability of the agreement as the reason? Is s127 cited or s65?

[FlyboyAgain]

Update: yet another Scottish law firm has declined to assist me with this. They won't even advise me on it!

[katie3105]

can you take a look at my thread and advise. I am quite confuse as to whether or not it is legal/illegal to add single premium into loan and whether you can claim back ppi on this type of loan ? thanks

[FlyboyAgain]

I was always under the impression it was.

 

HBoS came back stating the premium was monthly when it clearly is not. Please see the scan at Scans :: StACS1.jpg picture by kakkadoo - Photobucket and correct me if you think otherwise.

 

They have aslo refused to tell me:-

 

who the underwriter is

what commission was paid

 

all on the grounds that the above do not fall under the provisions of the DP Act.

 

The case is now back with the ombudsman and I'm reporting HBoS to the Information Commissioner for not supplying all letters and notes on this account, which they have indeed failed to do. Seem to be going nowhere with this and STILL can't get a solicitor to even look at it, let alone take it on board!

[JGJ]

FlyboyAgain,

 

I have this day received a letter from Lloyds TSB stating that they cannot disclose whether they receive a commission, or the amount of any commission because this information is confidential as between the bank and insurer and that they are under no Legal or regulatory obligation to disclose such information.

 

However it carries on to say that;

DECISION I have reviewed the records relating to the sale of your loan protection policy and have taken into account your comments noting your circumstances at the time of sale. ( I was self employed)

 

I have decided to uphold your complaint and offer to settle your complaint which is in line with standard redress remedy recommended by the Financial Ombudsman Service. The offer I propose to make involves two calculations.

 

Calculation One

 

I will calculate the difference between the settlement balance you have paid on the loan and what the settlement would have been had the PPI premium not been added to the loan.

 

Calculation Two

 

I will then calculate the amount you have paid up to the date of calculation and refund this back to Consumer Debt Recovery. This is worked out by calculating how much you paid each month in respect of the Insurance Loan alone and then multiplying this figure by how many months the Insurance was active for.

 

I have forwarded the letter to the FOS who have taken up the complaint some many weeks ago.

 

I would appreciate any comments/advice re my ongoing complaint.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[FlyboyAgain]

JGJ,

 

 

Looks like you have gotten some kind of result. Shouldn't they also be adding interest onto what they're paying you back? I'd need to look into it again but I'm sure they should. However, if you've gotten this far you may wish to accept it.

 

Who is 'Consumer Debt Recovery'? A division within Lloyds or an outside DMA?

[JGJ]

FlyboyAgain,

 

Consumer Debt Recovery is indeed part and parcel of the mighty Lloyds threatogramme machine.

 

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[FlyboyAgain]

So they've passed that, internally, and set it aside any current debts. Which is fair enough, i suppose. I'd still wonder about the interest.

[JGJ]

FlyboyAgain,

 

Reading further into their offer, Interest is mentioned thus so:

 

1) After my post #108, CALCULATION TWO

 

I will then add simple interest at 8% per annum to each monthly payment from the date you paid each amount, to the date the loan closed.

A further 8% simple interest per annum will be calculated when I receive your signed acceptance. This will only be processed at this point to ensure the figure is calculated accurately and more importantly, correctly.

 

The calculated simple interest at 8% will then be refunded into your bank account.

 

Please be advised that this redress remedy has been designed to ensure that you are put back to the same position you would have been in, had the single premium PPI/LPI not been included with your loan. The redress remedy that I am offering you is the same redress remedy that an adjudicator at the Financial Ombudsman Service would make in your favour.

 

Although we are prepared to refund you the Loan Protection Premium as outlined above, we do not agree that the loan agreement between us was unenforceable or contravines the Consumer Credit Act 1974 or any associated regulations.

 

ALSO as in your post #107 they have refused to:

 

1) Refused to state who the underwriter is.

 

2) Refused to state as to any commissions paid as information is confidential and are under no legal obligation to disclose.

 

I need to take a real good look at the implications as to the offer as I smell a proverbial Rat!

 

Your comments will be gratefully received.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[landy_alert]

Hi Flyboy and JGJ:)

 

It's the lack of actual figures from LTSB which worries me...........and the fact that the FOS expects us to sign acceptance forms in Full and Final settlement of a PPI claim with no knowledge of how much refund is being offered.

 

Something definitely smells:eek:

 

Landy x

[JGJ]

landy alert,

 

I think we are all honing our nostrils to the smell of the rat bait. I definately need to take further advice from anyone who would care to offer info/advice re the PPI offers.

 

I like FlyboyAgain need specific advice re the calculations that they are using.

[landy_alert]

Unfortunately my experience is that the FOS will say the method used by LTSB is correct - which is of no help whatsoever if the figures they have used are incorrect or if they just won't give you those figures:mad:

 

If you try to dispute what LTSB/the FOS say the FOS merely refer it to what they call 'full adjudication'.

 

Apologies that I can't offer any specific advice,

 

Landy x

[FlyboyAgain]

This is a final update to this.

 

After a lengthy consideration, the Fin Omb has found in HBOS' favour on two accounts:-

 

 

1. The PPI was a separate entity and not amalgamated (absolute tosh!)
   
2. The payment protection was not forced up us nor was it a condition to the loan being approved. (yes, it was!)
   

I duly appealled with further paperwork and evidence and the FO still found for HBOS, even after I know that they failed to supply to me with internal notes and letters pertaining to the PPI; they have denied any existence of such and I am still awaiting the Information Commisioner to get back to me on HBOS not fulfilling the conditions of a DSAR.

 

So, there you have it: a victory for the biggest bunch of liars I have ever come across in my entire life. I asked them for the PPI to be cancelled and to send out a revised instalment amount. They wrote back saying the PPI had been removed and the direct debit amended accordingly. Guess what? The next installment was taken and they took the PPI payment as well! I am convinced this is p***-taking on their part, as was the funny little trick they pulled with a letter asking to confirm the cancellation of protection on another account - our mortgage account - which just happens to be a very similar account number to the tied loan. At no time did we request this so you have to ask yourself why that letter was sent.

 

They are a vile organisation and I would never trust any of them again, from bottom to top.

 

I would like to thank all who helped me on this topic as I don't think I'll be around for much longer as am emigrating. Good luck to you all.

Edited July 15, 2010 by FlyboyAgain