Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 24/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • AMEX and TSB the 2 Creditors who you need to worry about the least, ever!  Just stop paying them and forget about it, ignore all their threat o gram letters.  Only if, and with these 2 it's a massive if, you end up with a claim form you need to respond, and there will be plenty of help here.
    • No, nothing from Barclays. Turns out i have 2 accounts on here, and i posted originally on the other one. Sorry about that.  
  • 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

Letter Needed To Reclaim Credit Card Ppi


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5309 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

Hello,

Please can anyone help direct me to where i can find a good letter to send to Egg. I am trying to reclaim credit card repayment protection insurance.

thankyou

 

Do you have all the relevant documentation such as the Consumer Credit Agreement, statements etc ?

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

Hi AA, well finally after 9 months of waiting they have sent me the statements for this account, this is where i found the PPI.

In the original SAR docs recieved there was no credit agreement included.

When i read through their screen notes it says about 4 times on different dates that they do not have the CCA on file!

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello livis,

 

this is a letter I used please see if there is anything in it that will give you an idea what to compose for your own reclaim letter.

 

I write in regard to the above References A - Q. Sadly, The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) have so far failed to comply fully with my DSAR in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 (despite the correct procedures being followed and the correct fees being submitted) for the provision of all data applicable to myself and the three loan accounts. I have submitted a separate letter on this subject to the Data Protection Officer and, indeed, have lodged a formal complaint with the Information Commissioners Office. You have forwarded copies of the three Loan account statements, my current account statement and information as requested in Reference M.

 

In each case PPI policies were attached to the above loans obtained from you on 8 March 2004, 20 May 2005 and 21 August 2006.

 

I am now convinced that I was mis-sold these PPI policies for the following 7 reasons:

 

1. Responsibilities When Underwriting a Policy of Insurance: On each occasion, when the details of a loan were discussed Your sales advisors failed to check my personal circumstances at the time of the sale, which they are under obligation to do when underwriting a Policy of Insurance. If they had done so, they would have realised that the PPI policies were useless to me. At no time was any attempt made to ascertain if the product provided was fit for purpose, suitable for my needs or if indeed it was required at all.

 

2. Alternative Insurance Cover: Your sales advisors in each case failed to ask me if I had any alternative arrangements for insurance cover. My employer has a generous illness package which would cover a period of sickness as follows: 6 months full pay followed by 6 months half pay. I would also be entitled to a generous redundancy package and a substantial payment would be made in the event of my death in service (more than suffice to clear the balance of the loan).

 

 

3.Failure to Supply Important Information with Regard to Significant Policy Exclusions: I was most definitely not informed that the PPI policies could contain certain exclusions which could affect me and my ability to claim on the policies if I should need to. Additionally I was never told that Pre Existing Medical Conditions could invalidate my policy and I was never asked if I had any Pre Existing Medical Conditions. Indeed your Loan Customer Duty of Care Checklist and the Loanguard Certificate of Insurance to which the Customer Duty of Care Checklist refers (forwarded under cover of Reference N) contain no reference to any Pre Existing Medical Conditions or includes any questions to me on the subject. I am in fact in receipt of a 40% War Disablement Pension from Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) since 1991. One element of this pension includes back injury which I now know is an exclusion in your PPI Policies. I also believe that I would also be excluded on at least one other existing condition.

 

4. Widespread PPI Mis-Selling: I cancelled the PPI policy on xxxAccountNo xxx on 7 Jan 2007 after becoming aware of the widespread mis-selling of PPI by some financial institutions, following recent media coverage and recent OFT and FSA investigations regarding the mis-selling of PPI. I believe this is borne out by Point 3 above. I am also aware that the question of PPI cover is the subject of an ongoing inquiry by the Competition Commissioner.

 

5. Wholly Inappropriate PPI Selling Bonuses: I understand that some employees are paid higher bonuses if they get prospective creditors to take out PPI with loans. How can the best interests of the customer possibly be met, if there is a clear conflict of interest between your responsibilities to me, and the drive of your employees to sell Payment Protection Insurance whether it is suitable or not in order to receive bonuses?

 

6. PPI Loan Interest payments miscalculated: Since I cancelled the policy, I have actually received a smaller reduction in the PPI loan interest payments than the figure stated on the agreement. The explanatory letter sent to me has, I believe, confirmed that I have paid for single premium PPI policies on each loan taken with your establishment.

 

7. True Nature of Single Premium PPI Not Explained: No explanation was forthcoming from any advisor on any occasion on the full extent of single premium PPI policies or the fact that they would offer little or no refund if the loan was settled early or if the insurance was cancelled. The statements you have forwarded on accounts xxx and xxx, show no element of any refund of PPI or PPI interest when the accounts were settled on refinancing. There was also no explanation that the cost of the PPI premium would be added to the total cost of credit and interest added for the full term of the agreement. I believe this practice is unlawful.

 

I now believe that the single premium PPI policies attached to the loan accounts were both extremely unfair and totally unreasonable and offered me very little, if any protection value whatsoever. I am therefore requesting a full refund of all costs including all single PPI premiums that have been paid, the interest added to these premiums and the payments, that I have paid to date.

 

 

From this thread there is a lot more in here but it will take ages to trawl through.

 

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

 

I actually complained to the ICO about missing data and delays and my complaint was upheld.

 

My letter was aimed a loan accounts and I know your is a Card account but you can still possibly use some of the information.

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

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...