Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • honeybee13
      Should we trust Sunak or the next PM to fix the Country's problems? (title revised 24/10/22)

      By honeybee13 · Posted

      I hope Lord Frost is OK. Islamists and the woke Left are uniting to topple the West ARCHIVE.PH archived 18 Apr 2024 19:12:37 UTC  
    • lookinforinfo
      EPC ANPR PCN - Overstay - Solent Retail Havant Car Park, PO9 1ND

      By lookinforinfo · Posted

      Ok you are in the clear. The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 for two reasons. The first is that in Section 9 [2][e]  says the PCN must "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges ". It does not say that even though it continues correctly with blurb about the driver. The other fault is that there is no parking period mentioned. Their ANPR cameras do show your arrival and departure times but as that at the very least includes driving from the entrance to the parking space then later leaving the parking space and driving to the exit. It also doesn't allow for finding a parking spot: manoeuvering into it avoiding parking on the lines: possibly having to stop to allow pedestrians/other cars to pass in front of you; returning the trolley after finishing shopping; loading children disabled people in and out of the car, etc etc.  All of that could easily add five, ten or even 15 minutes to your time which the ANPR cameras cannot take into account. So even if it was only two hours free time you could  still have been within the  time since there is a MINIMUM of 15 minutes Grace period when you leave the car park. However as they cannot even manage to get their PCN to comply with the Act you as keeper cannot be pursued. Only the driver is now liable and they do not know who was driving as you have not appealed and perhaps unwittingly given away who was driving. So you do not owe them a penny. No need to appeal. Let them waste their money pursuing you . 
    • honeybee13
      Should we trust Sunak or the next PM to fix the Country's problems? (title revised 24/10/22)

      By honeybee13 · Posted

      If Labour are elected I hope they go after everyone who made huge amounts of money out of this, by loading the company with debt. The sad thing is that some pension schemes, including the universities one, USS, will lose money along with customers.
    • aesmith
      I see Octopus have started using the old EON 'tricks to try an install smart meters

      By aesmith · Posted

      What's the reason for not wanting a smart meter? Personally I'm saving a pile on a tariff only available with one. Today electricity is 17.17p/kWh. If the meter is truly past its certification date the supplier is obliged to replace it. If you refuse to allow this then eventually they'll get warrant and do so by force. Certified life varies between models and generations, some only 10 or 15 years, some older types as long as 40 years or maybe even more. Your meter should have its certified start date marked somewhere so if you doubt the supplier you can look up the certified life and cross check.
    • aesmith
      my Leasehold/Freehold property and it's issues.

      By aesmith · Posted

      No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others.  Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

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

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

MadKit v Lloyds-PPI reclaim litigation ongoing.

MadKit
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4641 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

pop_gun

pop_gun

Posted
Posted
Hi Ho, Hi Ho, off to court we go! :-D

 

Handing in the the first of a few N1 forms and POCs this morning so updates to follow. Thanks again for all the help and advice I received on CAG. :wink:

 

your wording for the POC interested me. i would be appreciated if you could post

(PM or in post) your POC. obviously leaving out anything which identifies you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

caro

caro

Posted
Posted

Well done MK. :-)

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred_Funk

Fred_Funk

Posted
Posted
Good afternoon and I hope everyone has had a very Happy Easter!

 

I am about to start a claim at Money-COL for refund of PPI and wondered if this was appropriate:

 

The claim is for monies owed to the Claimant (Me) by the Defendant (Lloyds) pursuant to the mis-selling of Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) on agreement number XXX regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant claims the refund of PPI single premium payment on 1 XXX 2006, refund of PPI charges as part of monthly payments and interest pursuant to the terms of the credit agreement at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of judgment. The Claimant is also entitled to claim post judgment interest on the same terms. Full particulars of claim to follow in accordance with the CPR practice direction 7C (Para 5.2)

 

Not sure about the bit in bold as it seems to be the same as the sentence before but willing to keep it in if its appropriate.

 

Advice welcome (read needed) 8)

 

MadKit

 

Sorry to butt in but only just stumbled across this thread and was hoping you guys could aid my understanding.

 

You refer to a 'refund of the single premium payment on 1 XXX 2006' as well as 'refund of PPI charges as part of monthly payments'.

 

It may well be that I'm missing something - I often am - but aren't these two things one in the same?! For instance, if say, £2,400, ie £100 per month, is added to my two-year loan to cover the cost of the PPI then any refund concerns only the 24 payments of £100 and the interest thereon but not the £2,400 the PPI cost as I never actually parted with this money. Yes? No?

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
MadKit

MadKit

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

moneyproblem and pop_gun - as soon as the POC is through the claim process, I will certainly PM it to you. I want to make sure everything is in order with it first.

 

Fred Funk - this is how the formula works on the CAG spreadsheet.

 

Total Loan £20,000.00

PPI £4,000.00

Monthly Payment £250.00

% PPI each payment £50.00 20.00%

 

You would claim the single PPI of £4000 plus interest and also 20% of each payment and interest. If you use the CAG spreadsheet, it has all the formulas you need. You will need to apply the percentage to any payments you make to work out PPI portion of each payment.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

And, why thank you Caro! :-)

 

MadKit

Edited by MadKit
Link to post
Share on other sites
MARTIN3030

MARTIN3030

Posted
Posted

Should be close to the 14 day acknowledge now.

In my case their Brighton Solicitors did this and also the defence.

Was later farmed out to Hammond in Brum.

They will use locals outside South East-but still be steering.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
MARTIN3030

MARTIN3030

Posted
Posted
Martin, a few days still to go. Unfortunately court only sent it out 2 days later but its OK, Bank Holiday coming up so all good. :-) I relish the fight! :madgrin:

 

Thats what we like to hear.:-)

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred_Funk

Fred_Funk

Posted
Posted
moneyproblem and pop_gun - as soon as the POC is through the claim process, I will certainly PM it to you. I want to make sure everything is in order with it first.

 

Fred Funk - this is how the formula works on the CAG spreadsheet.

 

Total Loan £20,000.00

PPI £4,000.00

Monthly Payment £250.00

% PPI each payment £50.00 20.00%

 

You would claim the single PPI of £4000 plus interest and also 20% of each payment and interest. If you use the CAG spreadsheet, it has all the formulas you need. You will need to apply the percentage to any payments you make to work out PPI portion of each payment.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

And, why thank you Caro! :-)

 

MadKit

 

Apologies if I'm being a bit dim - it's entirely conceivable - but I'm still not convinced by your figures.

 

If the PPI accounts for 20 per cent of the total loan then I agree you should be seeking repayment of 20 per cent [ie £50] of each of the repayments you made plus interest.

 

But, surely, you can't also ask for repayment of the 4k the PPI cost as you never parted with this money in the first place?!

 

For instance, I'm currently looking at reclaiming some PPI on a hire purchase agreement. The PPI is shown separately; the cash price being £798.00 and the interest/charge for credit £447.12 making a total of £1,245.12. This equates to 48 payments of £25.94 [48 x 25.94 = £1,245.12]. I am, therefore, looking to reclaim each of these payments of £25.94 plus statutory - or even compound interest in restitution [on the basis of Sempra] - from the date of the payment until today.

 

I can't also ask for the £1,245.12 the PPI cost back as that, in effect, is asking for the same thing twice.

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites
MadKit

MadKit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

You may be right but this is the way I was told to work it out. If you look at the CAG spreadsheet, it should be self explanatory but again, this is the formula I have used to file the POC.

 

MadKit

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred_Funk

Fred_Funk

Posted
Posted
You may be right but this is the way I was told to work it out. If you look at the CAG spreadsheet, it should be self explanatory but again, this is the formula I have used to file the POC.

 

MadKit

 

Take a look at post #72 on this thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?300578-Natwest-PPI-Claim-Help/page4

 

steven4064, who is acknowledged as the authority on this kinda stuff, has agreed that, as I suspected, the template you have used is fundamentally flawed.

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites
MadKit

MadKit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Lets see what happens with the court case before we start saying calculations or spreadsheets are flawed. Fred_Funk if you have been through this process and had PPI returned through the court, please post how you did this as I am sure that would really help everyone.

 

MadKit

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred_Funk

Fred_Funk

Posted
Posted
Lets see what happens with the court case before we start saying calculations or spreadsheets are flawed. Fred_Funk if you have been through this process and had PPI returned through the court, please post how you did this as I am sure that would really help everyone.

 

MadKit

 

Whatever you might like to think, I'm trying to be helpful. Fingers crossed, your claim won't get as far as court but if it does then unless you amend your PoC, to reflect the fact that your figues are flawed, then you can, I think, be almost certain of losing [regardless of whether or not your PPI was actually mis-sold].

 

I looked at the spreadsheet and was 99.9 per cent certain it was incorrect but wouldn't have wanted anyone to take my word for it which is why I asked the member of the site team, steven4064, who's acknowledged as the leading authority on such matters to also take a look. If you want to ignore his advice then that is, of course, entirely your prerogative but would, I think, be ill advised.

 

I haven't yet got as far as court on PPI but did go down that route on bank charges and, I can tell you now, that if your PoC appear to demonstrate in any way whatsoever that you don't have a full grasp of what you're arguing the bank's legal team will use that as a basis on which to ask that the claim is struck out.

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites
MadKit

MadKit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

As for bank charges, I was very successful reclaiming these so do have a basic knowledge of how these things work and I believe you are trying to be helpful so I will tell you that I had help from more than one member of the site team preparing this POC and if they had thought I was totally wrong, they would have told me. I have never ignored the advice from them or others in the know and am not completely stupid and didn't go into this sight or site unseen! :-)

 

I don't believe that you saw my spreadsheet so I can't understand how you feel that my figures are flawed when you haven't seen them or indeed the spreadsheet I used. If I do have to amend the POC, so be it as I don't mind at least I have taken the step to reclaim and if others can learn from my success and any mistakes, then this is for the greater good of everyone on the site.

 

Let's keep the aggro for the people who most deserve it, the financial institutions!

 

MadKit

Link to post
Share on other sites
ims21

ims21

Posted
Posted

Hi there

 

Just noticed the "Choppy Waters" on this one.

 

I have no idea which spreadsheet Madkit has used so I can't comment on the specifics of that document.

 

What should be claimed is the monthly ppi repayment plus 8% statutory interest on each of those payments running from the date of each of those payments up to he date of claim. In addition you claim 8% stat int up to date of settlement.

 

Hope this helps clarify what should happen.

 

ims :behindsofa:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred_Funk

Fred_Funk

Posted
Posted
As for bank charges, I was very successful reclaiming these so do have a basic knowledge of how these things work and I believe you are trying to be helpful so I will tell you that I had help from more than one member of the site team preparing this POC and if they had thought I was totally wrong, they would have told me. I have never ignored the advice from them or others in the know and am not completely stupid and didn't go into this sight or site unseen! :-)

 

I don't believe that you saw my spreadsheet so I can't understand how you feel that my figures are flawed when you haven't seen them or indeed the spreadsheet I used. If I do have to amend the POC, so be it as I don't mind at least I have taken the step to reclaim and if others can learn from my success and any mistakes, then this is for the greater good of everyone on the site.

 

Let's keep the aggro for the people who most deserve it, the financial institutions!

 

MadKit

 

Agree wholeheartedly that we should save any aggro for the financial institutions!

 

Of course, you're right, I ain't seen your spreadsheet. I was going more by what you said in post #30 - which I took to mean you were seeking the return of the PPI premium and the proportion of your monthly repayments which was attributable to PPI, as well as s69 interest on both - and concluded you were using Bog's spreadsheet [which appears to adopt just such an approach]. If I'm guilty of putting two and two together and coming up with five then I apologise.

 

Just for the record, I agree unequivocally with what ims21 has written above but maintain that Bog's spreadsheet is horribly flawed.

 

Regardless, best of luck!

Fred_Funk

 

PS If you're so inclined, I'd be very interested in seeing your spreadsheet.

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites
MARTIN3030

MARTIN3030

Posted
Posted

As I remember,a number of site team looked over the final draft of the POCS.

When we first saw it,there was some work needed,but this was changed.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
MadKit

MadKit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

:-) Just waiting to hear from court. Had excellent help from this site and many thanks to the guys here who have been amazing. Fingers crossed it will be sorted out soon and the next time I post should be good news.

 

MadKit

Link to post
Share on other sites
MARTIN3030

MARTIN3030

Posted
Posted

I think its worth pointing out,that the defendants have poured scorn on the claim and think there is no cause of action.

It is unthinkable that any bank defence team can be dismissing arguments which are now well established facts.

Or to put it another way,the very same arguments,which the regulators themselves deemed were unacceptable and led not only to victory in the case brought by the OFT,but a wholesale cave in by those banks who were participants in miss-selling PPI policies over many years.

 

There is overwhelming evidence to support any PPI case which is brought,and relies on the clauses and unfair business practices these Banks were seen to have been employing.

 

And interestingly enough,the biggest seller of miss-sold policies,just happens to be Lloyds.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
MARTIN3030

MARTIN3030

Posted
Posted

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-1722438/Lloyds-surrender-raises-hopes-of-payouts-on-PPI.html

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-1384686/Lloyds-surrender-raises-hopes-payouts-PPI-banks-fight.html

 

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/protection/lloyds-scraps-ppi-sales/1015800.article

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
MadKit

MadKit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi there, thanks for asking. We are waiting for response from Lloyds and so far only one letter pretty much saying what Martin said above making no effort to settle. They have 2 weeks to send in AQ so I guess they will do that at the very last moment possible.

 

MK

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...