Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So Johnson is moving on from partygate and feels he should deal with issues the country is facing, rather than resign for the culture in No10 or misleading the commons.   The Good Law Project has issued a legal letter threatening court action unless the Met investigates 'The Three Gatherings' or explains why it doesn't think it should investigate the PM's participation in them.   The law must apply fairly to all - Good Law Project GOODLAWPROJECT.ORG The Metropolitan Police investigated the various gatherings – we use a neutral expression – around 10 Downing Street during the pandemic...  
    • Having reviewed my previous response, whilst the overall position remains the same, where I referred to a Default, this should have referred to the full amount falling due for payment/the demand for full payment.  I apologise for any confusion that this may have caused and have amended my explanation below to replace any reference to the Default Notice.   Our client’s records show that the last deferment date was the 24 April 2011. Once deferment ends, the agreement takes effect in accordance with the terms thereof – i.e. the monthly payments fall due.   The relevant limitation period in respect of this type of agreement is 6 years, pursuant to section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 (‘the act’).  In respect of this type of agreement, limitation starts to accrue when the full amount owing falls due for payment, as the creditor does not have a cause of action to bring proceedings for the full amount of the claim until that time.  The full amount owing under the agreement becomes due (and the cause of action accrues) in one of two ways, namely:   1.    If the customer fails to make required payments, the creditor can serve a Default Notice pursuant to section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.  In the event that the customer does not pay the arrears in accordance with the Default Notice, the creditor can terminate the agreement.  Limitation then starts to accrue from that date; or 2.    If the agreement is not terminated due to failure to comply with a Default Notice, the full amount falls due for payment when the full term of the agreement expires.  Limitation then starts to accrue from that date.   In this case, the agreement was not terminated under the terms of a Default Notice.  The cause of action and hence, the limitation period therefore, started to accrue from the date when the term of the agreement expired.  This was a 60 month agreement.  When a student loan account reaches its 60th month and there is still an outstanding balance, the account matures. This means it will exit the Terms and Conditions of the agreement and the balance becomes due in full. The maturity date is moved on by 12 months with each deferment period meaning that this account matured on the 31 March 2016, which is when the relevant limitation period therefore, started to accrue.  Limitation would not therefore, have expired until March 2022.  As you are aware however, proceedings were issued against you in June 2019 – i.e. comfortably within the relevant limitation period.   Further to the above, even if limitation did not start to run from the date specified above (which it did) and actually started to run from the date of last deferment in 2011 as you incorrectly allege, you did make some payments in respect of the debt, the most recent of which was on the 28 March 2015 in the amount of £90.73, which was paid to Capita under a direct debit.  Pursuant to section 29(5) of the act, the relevant limitation period accrues afresh upon each part payment.  In view of that payment, even if your view of when limitation initially started to accrue was correct (which it is not), it would have accrued afresh based upon the payment and would not therefore, have expired until March 2021.  Again, as proceedings were issued in June 2019, this was comfortably within limitation.   The Subject Access Request supplied to you by Erudio enclosed a number of letters that were issued to you throughout 2016, in which they clearly informed you that your account was in arrears. These letters made it clear that the client wished to work with you to agree an affordable repayment arrangement and that failure to do so may result in a Default being registered against you. Unfortunately, they were unable to reach an amicable resolution resulting in a Final Demand being produced on the 12 January 2017 and issued to you on the 14 January 2017 and it ultimately, becoming necessary for our client to then issue proceedings against you due to non-payment.   As such, whilst I apologise if you feel that our client deliberately delayed the cause of action in order to prolong the limitation period, I assure you that is not the case. As set out above, as the agreement was not terminated under the terms of a Default Notice, Erudio were contractually obligated to allow a 60 month period between the last deferment date and the account maturity date.  They then acted in a fair and reasonable manner by allowing an additional 10 months after the account maturity date to give you the opportunity to resolve the matter before the Demand in Full was issued.    I have also had sight of an email that you sent to my colleague, Richard Senior in which you requested us to confirm that we have complied with FCA regulation. Having reviewed the matter, I am satisfied that throughout our instruction we have acted in accordance with the relevant FCA regulation.
    • Fraudsters are using the details of firms we authorise to try to convince people that they work for a genuine, authorised firm. Find out more about this 'clone firm'.View the full article
    • More than 90,000 people will get payouts over the installation of emissions cheating devices.View the full article
    • We believe this firm may be providing financial services or products in the UK without our authorisation. Find out why you should be wary of dealing with this unauthorised firm and how to protect yourself.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Mortgage PPI


 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4666 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

Hi again

 

Just checked my MPPI to find same exclusions as all other PPI so totally unsuitable for me as far as existing conditions goes :mad: It was taken out 28 months ago on advice of IFA who knew my existing condition as well :(

It is not paid to the mortgage co but to Paymentshield as a separate purchase so don't know if under CCA but without IFA advice, we would not have bought it & reviewing the IFA's comments (in writing), she stated that she had chosen paymentshield as they were 'her only contact' for this!

 

Is this claimable in the same way as other PPI policies? How do I deal with the fact that the policy is jointly held with my OH?

 

Thanks for info.

 

PS - Is 'caggitis' classed as a new disease cos I've caught a HUGE dose of it & seem to be permanently attached to this place & the pursuit of saving my hard-earned cash...:-D

Edited by mkb
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again

 

Just checked my MPPI to find same exclusions as all other PPI so totally unsuitable for me as far as existing conditions goes :mad: It was taken out 28 months ago on advice of IFA who knew my existing condition as well :(

It is not paid to the mortgage co but to Paymentshield as a separate purchase so don't know if under CCA but without IFA advice, we would not have bought it & reviewing the IFA's comments (in writing), she stated that she had chosen paymentshield as they were 'her only contact' for this!

 

Is this claimable in the same way as other PPI policies? How do I deal with the fact that the policy is jointly held with my OH?

 

Thanks for info.

 

PS - Is 'caggitis' classed as a new disease cos I've caught a HUGE dose of it & seem to be permanently attached to this place & the pursuit of saving my hard-earned cash...:-D

(Yes and beware because it is contagious) :eek:;)

 

I haven't seen all your paper work but I would suggest it is reclaimable from what you have posted. Not sure though who you would claim from as you have independent advice. If you have paperwork fine. I would write a snottogram to the advisor and reclaim from the supplier of the PPI.

 

As it is a joint account, you will need to check your paperwork to see who was the named person in the case of a claim. If it is both of you then you should both sign any letters reclaiming any mis-sold PPI.

 

 

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

Thanks for getting back to me again aa.

 

Ltr from mortgage advisor here:

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/5556/mppi.jpg

 

and Paymentshield Policy here:

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8931/mppi2.jpg

 

Any suggestions for the 'snottogram' (love that expression!)

 

I expect Paymentshield will say that we had plenty of time to read T & C's before now but surely we can still claim as mis-sold in view of existing conditions???

Edited by mkb
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for getting back to me again aa.

 

Ltr from mortgage advisor here:

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/5556/mppi.jpg

 

and Paymentshield Policy here:

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8931/mppi2.jpg

 

Any suggestions for the 'snottogram' (love that expression!)

 

I expect Paymentshield will say that we had plenty of time to read T & C's before now but surely we can still claim as mis-sold in view of existing conditions???

 

Life can be difficult with PPI I would suggest you take up the cudgels against majestic finance as they are the brokers who appear to have said the paymentshield was suitable even though you appear to have existing conditions. ( I assume these are pre existing medical conditions and if that assumption is correct then you will need to request the needs and demands questionnaire/customer duty of care questionnaire that majestic finance used to ensure the PPI being bought from paymentshield was in fact adequate to your needs and if you have pre existing medical conditions then IMO the PPI would most probably have been inadequate under the exclusions within the policy. ( you will have to verify this by having sight of the policy exclusions)

 

Hope this helps

 

 

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...