Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Documents arrived today dated 27th March.  This is a cc taken out a long time ago (2008) and they don't seem to have been able to provide a copy of a CCA agreement, just reams of print outs of lines of texts from old bank statements, default notices etc.   
    • Documents finally arrived today from PRA group.  New day have sent me lots of paperwork, copies of default letters and statements, print out of what looks like a CCA that would have been completed on online, IP address as signature.  This debt is not too old, so possible this is the true copy of agreement ?  Not sure what my defence would be beyond irresponsible lending. 
    • pers i wouldn't.. all you need to know is in the posts of that thread....that being section 127(3) of the CCA refers. if under a CCA return, the 'creditor' claims its a recon, it must not contain any details like a sig, tickbox, or typed name (whether you signed physically or by online tickbox) 1. those are not necessary in a recon, so why inc them? (faked??) 2, it cant thus be a recon!!, it must be a copy of the 'original' from the original creditor, not from a debt buyers filing cabinet. they shouldn't not be 'mixing' some original docs from the OC with crap from their filing cabinet, claiming its ALL a recon! because some of it is faked. just remember there are far more docs like NOA and a DN that are as equally important to a court claim of 'this debt is enforceable'. never rely solely upon the dodgy agreement argument.
    • India has thousands of small gold refineries which are facing more competition from big players.View the full article
  • 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
      • 160 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
  • Recommended Topics

LLoyds LPI Claim


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4716 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

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It's 10 days since I emailed my adjudicator back asking how long he was prepared to give Lloyds on providing a solution to my follow up query on my pay out, as yet nothing. Is it now time to really start nagging and sending an email a day? Or is it a case of sitting and waiting... again! Very frustrating!:???:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did just that dj, was told that the complaint was still a 'live' issue and he was again chasing Lloyds for a response. he said he would contact me again in a couple of days to give me a further update. If heard nothing in 7 days will phone again... ah all fun isn't it! :lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol! Isn't it just Mikey.

 

Unfortunately there is little else you can do on this one. But do keep the pressure on them if he does not cal you back as promised.

 

Stay strong and remember he who laughs last, laughs longest.

 

DJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Me again! New update to keep you all on your edge of your seats... Had this back from adjudicator...

'I can confirm that Lloyds TSB have provided me with further information

and I am currently reconciling the figures to ascertain the

discrepancies.

I hope to conclude the matter for you very shortly.'

 

Continuing to watch this space!!:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Happy New Year to everyone! Back gain with another update, had another email from my adjudicator...

'Thank you for your e-mail and I apologise for the considerable delay

that has occurred in resolving this matter.

I will revisit this matter with Lloyds and will contact you again early

next week.'

 

So as you can see not much progress! Was hoping a new year would mean a fresh start and finding whether Lloyds were right or wrong on there figures. Not too much to ask is it?! Anyways I will see what next week brings...!

:roll:

Mikey40

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well have finally had a reply from the FOS and it's not good news, and to be honest I'm a tad confused and not sure what's the best way forward now. Any help or advice from fellow caggers would be much appreciated. I'm off for a strong coffee and another read of the below...

 

'Dear Mr [edit],

 

Thank you for your e-mail and I apologise for the considerable delay before reply. I acknowledge your patients whilst this matter has been investigated.

 

Having now considered the situation, I believe the Lloyds calculations are broadly in line with the Financial Ombudsman's guidance.

 

The objective in carrying out the settlement calculations is to put a consumer back into the position that you should have been in if PPI had not been set up from the outset. The refund of the actual PPI premiums paid on the loan is straight forward to calculate but the settlement balance, when each individual loan is restructured into the next loan is more complicated to understand and this has caused the biggest discrepancy in your calculations compared to those of Lloyds TSB.

 

I believe you have also not taken into consideration the rebate calculated by the firm as each loan has been recalculated. Taking the example of loan account ..... the total PPI premium amounted to £2455.59 excluding interest. At the point of your loan restructure, the firm crystallises the interest in this case after nine months and you received a rebate of £1643.77 to reduce your outstanding loan when it rolled over in to the next loan.

 

The first step for the firm is to recalculate the loan and the payments to what they would have been if you had taken the loan without PPI. In this case, you paid £484.28 in PPI premiums but if the loan had been written without PPI you would have overpaid your account by £539.94 and this is referred to as the settlement difference.

 

The firm calculates the 'actual' premiums you have paid towards the PPI policy, in this case nine premiums of £53.80 totalling £484.28 plus the 8% interest on the PPI paid, totalling £293.20 which results in the refund of £777.48. You also receive £226.52 which is the excess balance interest and £132.97 representing the 8% interest on the excess balance interest.

 

I acknowledge that the settlement calculations are extremely difficult to describe but with the combination of the PPI premium rebate and the settlement difference calculations which are calculated in each step of the process, this does meet the objective of putting you back into the position you should be in had you not had PPI in the first instance.

 

In summary, on loan account ........you have received £1643.77 PPI rebate, £777.48 refund of PPI premiums paid plus £226.52 and £132.97 representing the excess balance interest and 8% interest respectively.

 

The settlement difference is obviously rolled forward into the next loan and so on, and this element of the refund also enjoys an 8% per year interest calculation and is dealt with in loan account ''''''''' settlement calculations.

 

I hope this is of assistance in your understanding of the calculations.

 

You may wish to take independent financial advice to revisit the figures or as we explain in our leaflet, your complaint and the ombudsman, consumers have the right to ask an ombudsman to review their complaint - as the final stage in our process. However, I hope that this will not now be necessary in this case.'

 

hmmmmm!!

Mikey 40

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

wow what a xls!

 

welcome back dj

 

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

Dj

For some reason I can't view the xls document, every time I go to open it it asks me log in again and then it says I can't?! Confused! Can you PM it to me? Thanks for taking the time out. I will PM you back on the other points...

Mikey

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks dx, been on bereavement leave but back with a vengeance now.

 

Mikey, don't understand why you cannot open the xls document, but if you message me your email address I will send it that way.

 

Did try, but was unable to make attachment to private message for some reason.

 

DJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

here you go:

all the pages in one pdf and all the per info removed

 

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

Nice1 Dx,

 

You are a superstar.

 

Mikey,

 

I stand by my calculations and suggest you print a copy of just one of them and send it to your adjudicator at the FOS.

 

Let's see what he comes back with by way of exlpanation.

 

Good luck

 

DJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

DX

What can I say! Many, many thanks. I'm blown away by all the help I've received on this forum, really has kept me going when the going has been tough, but hey I'm in it for the long term, and with the help of you guys then I'm sure justice will be done!

 

DJ

OK, if you think that's the next course of action then I will get to it asap. Is it worth mentioning my query about the first loan, or is that something which gets resolved in the letters they sent me... but for the life of me I can't tell where!?!?! Will draft an accompayning letter and send one of the xls files, and mention I have the rest for their perusal if they so wish!! Do you have any other tips on what to put in the letter. Once again many thanks for all your help... maybe there might be still more to come!:!:

Mikey

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well had an email back from me adjudicator...

'I acknowledge safe receipt of your letter dated 28 February 2011.

I can confirm that your file will now be transferred to our offers and mediation team for further consideration'

 

Offers and Mediation team hey... another adjudicator perhaps?! We shall see...:!:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I've got an update on where I stand with my complaint with lloyds TSB, I received a letter from the FOS, which states the following:

'Your case has now been referred to me. I am an adjudicator at the FOS. I specialise in settling disputes informally. As part of my work, I will look at both sides of the complaint, weigh up the information, and then tell you and Lloyds TSB what I think. Where I cannot settle a complaint informally, I can issue more formal recommendations about whether the complaint should be upheld or not. If you or Lloyds TSB do not accept what I say, either side can ask for the complaint to be reviewed by an ombudsman.

The time it will now take to reach an outcome on your complaint depends on the issues involved and whether we need any more information. In the meantime, I would be grateful if you could let me know, if anything happens that you think may affect your complaint – or if there is an additional information that you have not already sent us and that you would like me to consider... '

 

Well I've got mysself a new adjudicator... it's a case of wait and see again me thinks!! Will keep you posted!

Mikey

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well have had a very quick letter through from my new adjudicator, it's not good news, but have a look at letter below. Would appreciate any thoughts and helpful hints on a letter to send back to them, as they haven't given me much time...

 

'Background to the complaint:

This complaint concerns the redress paid as a result of a complaint about the sale of five single premium PPI policies in connection with loans taken out in October 2001, July 2002, May 2003, April 2005 and February 2007.

Following your complaint that the policies had been mis-sold to you, Lloyds TSB wrote to you on January 28th 2010, advising that they would be prepared to offer redress in accordance with the guidance set out by this service. However, this redress was only offered in respect of the policies sold to you in April 2005 and February 2007. Lloyds TSB also made an offer to pay the difference between a rebate calculated on a pro-rata basis and the rebate you actually received upon early cancellation of the policies purchased in October 2001, July 2002 and May 2003.

You did not accept Lloyds TSB’s initial offer and referred your complaint to this service for consideration. Following our involvement, Lloyds TSB agreed to offer redress in accordance with our guidance, in respect of all five PPI policies. This offer was communicated to you in our letter of 19th April 2010.

Once we received your signed acceptance form on 28 April 2010, we forwarded this on to Lloyds TSB and asked them to contact you regarding the settlement, Lloyds TSB calculated the redress and issued this to you accordingly. However, having received a breakdown of the calculation from Lloyds TSB you are now in dispute with the amount of redress that has been paid. This is because the breakdown of the calculations that Lloyds TSB has provided, differs from your own.

You want Lloyds TSB to pay you the difference between the redress that you received and the redress reflected in your own calculations.

Findings:

Before I set out my findings, it may be helpful if I explain the approach that the Financial Ombudsman Service takes assessing complaints.

We are impartial and independent of both firms and complainants. We give equal consideration to the information provided by the both sides. Where there is a dispute about what happened, we base our decisions on the balance of probabilities – in other words, on what we consider is most likely to have happened in the light of the evidence.

I have carefully considered all information that you and Lloyds TSB have provided. I have set out my findings overleaf:

In my view, the settlement issued by Lloyds TSB is not unfair. This service’s general approach to calculating redress in this type of case would be for Lloyds TSB to put you back into the position you would have been in had you not taken out the PPI policies. This service has had sight of Lloyds TSB’s calculations, has looked at them and is satisfied that the correct methodology has been used.

I have noted your comments that you feel that Lloyds TSB should pay the figures quoted in your calculations, sent to this service on 3rd August 2010, however, I do not consider that this would be reasonable in the circumstances. I say this because, I feel that Lloyds TSB’s settlement adequately compensates you for the mis-sale of the PPI policies.

Conclusions:

Because of this, I have to tell you that I am unable to recommend that your complaint should be upheld. I appreciate that this likely to come as a disappointment to you. I know that this is not the outcome you were hoping. Nevertheless, I hope that my explanation has been helpful in setting out clearly why I have taken this view.

However, if you disagree with how I have reached my conclusions, please reply by 22nd April 2011 – telling me your reasons along with any evidence that you have not already provided and that you think is important to the case. Could you please let me know if you plan to reply fully but do not think you will be able to meet this deadline.

As a reminder, you will also have the right to ask an ombudsman to review the case – as the final stage in our process. But if we do not hear from you by 22nd April 2011 , I will assume that you have decided not to pursue the complaint further.'

As stated any help or advice much appreciated

Mikey

Link to post
Share on other sites

I coming round to the conclusion that I'm pushing the proverbial brown stuff uphill with the FOS, so am increasingly thinking of taking Lloyds TSB to court option regarding my dispute on the amount paid out by Lloyds. Do other caggers have any experiences of doing this, know where the best stickies are to find the best informaton on this course of action or just have there own views on the action, anything would be much appreciated. The one thing that springs to mind is that the disputed figure is over £5000, so am thinking this may not be able to go through the small claims court?

Mikey

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...