Missold PPI Capital One

[mummybird]

Sorry I missed that!

Thanks

[missy]

I am now in a position to go ahead with court action. I have searched this site and there seems to be a wide variety of options of help with the particulars of claim.

I want to make sure I get this right first time and am very keen to ensure I have all the relevant legal points covered. Can anyone please help with the wording of the POC that covers a missold PPI on a credit card.

 

Thanks

[ims21]

Hi

 

You could start you research here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?123886-POC-for-PPI-Do-we-have-any

 

ims

[missy]

Hi

 

Thanks for the link. I read through with interest and also found a copy of a POC

 

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

 

1. The Claimant had a credit agreement credit card acc no xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ("the Agreement") with the Defendant which was opened on or around 20/09/2000

 

2. At the time of completing a balance transfer on 31/08/2006, the Defendant misled the Claimant into procuring Payment Protection Insurance ("the Insurance") as part of the overall credit bargain.

 

3. The Claimant contends that:

 

a) The Claimant did not request the insurance when the online application was processed but that the Payment Protection Policy was pre-selected by the Defendant;

i) The Insurance imposed upon the Claimant were neither defined nor explained and were not "optional" as laid out in the said agreement.

ii) The Insurance was mis-soldicon, as the Claimant was self employed at the time and thus the circumstances invalidate the cover should the Claimant have ever needed to Claim.

 

b) The Claimant contends that the Defendant fraudulently passed incorrect details to the insurer to obtain these same Insurances from the insurer. The Claimant believes this grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing. The Claimant contends that that Insurers are under an obligation to ensure the policy they are selling is appropriate to that customer and contends the Defendant has not fulfilled this requirement. The Claimant believes this grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing. The Claimant also contends that the Defendant never once attempted to ascertain the Claimants’ position to assess whether such as product was suitable. If any assessment had taken place it should have been considered wholly unnecessary and unworthwhile.

 

c) If the Court finds that incorrect details were not passed as a result of fraudulent behaviour then the Claimant contends that incorrect details were passed to the insurer through the Defendants’ mistake as to facts.

 

d) The Claimant further contends that if the Insurance was applied correctly, that the Agreement was not executed in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

i) As the Insurance was in fact a charge for credit on the Conditional Sale Agreement, it could not also be part of the credit on the additional insurances agreement as under section 9 (4) CCA credit charges cannot be treated as credit even where time is given for their payments

ii) If the Insurance was not a charge for credit in respect of the Conditional Sale Agreement, as it was compulsory, it was a charge for credit on the additional insurances and under section 9 (4) CCA credit charges cannot be treated as credit

iii) For the reasons stated in either (i) or (ii) above, the agreement for additional insurances failed to state the correct amount of credit and did not comply with paragraph 2, schedule 6, which requires that regulated agreements contain as a prescribed term stating the correct amount of credit

iv) The agreement for additional insurances was therefore improperly executed under section 61 (1)(a) of the CCA.

 

 

4. Accordingly the Claimant asks:

 

a) The Court finds that the Defendant acted in a way grossly contravening ordinary principles of fair dealing and reopens the credit bargain to perform restitution to rectify the unjust enrichment performed, to the detriment of the Claimant by the sum of £308.23 by conferring a benefit under an ineffective transaction.

 

b) If the Court is unable to perform restitution, then the Claimant seeks damages of £308.23 by virtue of the Defendants’ actions, be they fraudulently or mistakenly, in obtaining the Insurances which offered no benefit to the Claimant.

 

c) Alternatively, the Claimant seeks damages of £308.23 in regards to the Defendants clear breach of the Claimants human rights as prescribed by Article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 whereby the Defendants actions did cause the Claimant to suffer personal loss to the sum of £308.23

 

d) Court costs;

 

e) The Claimant claims

 

i)Compound interesticon on the charges applied thereon to the Claimant’s account (“the principal claim”), at the annual rate of 16.9 %. This is the rate currently applied by the defendant to the claimant’s unauthorised use or borrowing of the defendant’s monies, as provided for in the contract.

 

The Claimant’s case for claiming this rate is based in equity, and a legal requirement for fairness and balance.

 

The Claimant deems the Defendant’s principal indebtedness to the claimant to be unauthorised, since it is comprised of insurance charges that were imposed upon the Claimant, they were not optional, they were not explained and were in fact mis-sold due to the Claimants employment situation.

 

ii) In the alternative to e i), if the court is unable

to agree that the claimant is entitled to the contractual rates of interest, on the grounds stated, the claimant avers that the defendant would be unjustly enrichedicon if the claimant’s entitlement was limited to the statutory rate of interest in that the defendant has had use of the sums and would have used these sums to re-lend at commercially compounded rates. On these grounds the claimant seeks restitution of the compounded contractual interest at the defendant’s authorised borrowing rate of 16.9 % per annum.

 

iii) In the alternative to e i) and ii), if the

court finds that the claimant is not entitled to

contractual interest, the claimant claims interest

under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984.

 

 

iv)Schedule showing interest calculated at the rate

quoted at I is attached to these

particulars of claim, as follows:

 

·Schedule A - Compound Contractual Interest calculated at 16.9%

 

This claim seems to be for a credit card account. Can someone tell me if it coveres all the relevant legal points. I see there is a figure for the amount being claimed but there is no mention of the compound interest figure.

 

Regards

Edited September 25, 2011 by missy

[ims21]

Hi

 

You'll have to calculate the comopund interest you are seeking, enter it as part of the claim amount and attach a copy of the workings.

 

Also, have a look at the POC here as there are probably points in there that you will want to include in yours.

 

http://www.consumerwiki.co.uk/index.php/PPI:_Particulars_of_Claim

 

Do not rush this process as a good POC is going to get you a long way whereas a poor POC can adversely affect things.

 

Make sure you do a lot of reading around the ppi forum and the stickies to get familiar with the cases and with the actions others are taking/have taken.

 

Shout when you have compiled a draft POC that you're happy with and one of the legal guys can check it over for you.

 

ims

Edited September 26, 2011 by ims21

[gregorious77]

check out my thread, I am in exactly the same situation as you. I have already sent off my court claim and they have until Thursday to answer the court.

Link http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?307079-Are-Capital-1-contacting-customers

You will probably find my POC very helpful as I modified it to reflect my position.

They said the same to me about buying PPI on the phone apparently I decided to buy it when activating my card.

Did they send you the original application form? mine had the do you require PPI box ticked as NO!

[gregorious77]

I forgot to say they did not provide the phone call in the original SAR and I have asked then to provide proof since and they did not even respond.

They are full of poop.

ims has helped me no end and as he says take your time on the POC post it up here for people to proof read before sending it off.

Also make sure you download and read any law or guidelines you might refer to in your POC, you dont want Crap1 to find any little flaws or have to amend your paperwork as this could incur some more court fees and more time.

 

My POC MYPOCfinal.doc

Edited September 26, 2011 by gregorious77
Added POC

[missy]

Hi

 

I have my POC and would appreciate someone giving it the once over.

 

1. The Claimant Applied for a credit card account with Capital One Bank PLC in April 2000 and the account was opened in May 2000. The account number is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

 

2. The claimant did not tick the YES box for PPI on the application form for the credit card.

 

3. The Claimant contends that the PPI was added to the account in despite it not being requested.

 

4. The claimant contends that they have not signed any agreement for PPI with Capital One Bank PLC.

 

5. The claimant contends that they did not receive any PPI terms and conditions from Capital One.

 

6. The Claimant contends that the PPI relating to the Agreement was not suitable for purpose because they were in secure full-time employment with no risk of redundancy, offering generous sickness benefit of full salary for 6 months and half salary for a further 6 months. They were also in receipt of an Armed Services Pension and had a life insurance policy.

 

7. The claimant contends that they would not have knowingly agreed to PPI in any circumstances.

 

8. The claimant contends that they did not understand the reference to PPI on credit card statements and assumed these were part of the standard charges for the credit.

 

9. The claimant contends that by adding this policy unknowingly Capital One breached paragraph 8.6 of the banking code.

 

10. The claimant contests that adding this policy unknowingly was not a fair or reasonable obligation as it was not required or wanted.

 

 

11. The Claimant believes that a reasonable level of care and skill was not offered when adding PPI to the account and that therefore Capital One Bank PLC failed to meet its obligations under the terms of section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

 

12. The Claimant contends that there should have been a system of supervision and checking in place to ensure that such errors, omissions and misrepresentations were noticed, and corrective action taken, and if there was no such system in place, then that should also be considered as a failure of Capital One Bank PLC to meet its obligations under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

 

13. The Claimant contends that the PPI was sold with a view to meeting sales targets and providing bonuses and commission for the Manager and staff, rather than to help the Claimant attain a better financial position.

 

14. In paragraph 12, the Claimant contended that there should have been a system of supervision and checking in place. The Claimant contends that the very fact that such a system was not in place, or that the system failed to identify the errors, omissions and misrepresentations highlighted elsewhere in these Particulars, should be considered as evidence of a policy of “turning a blind eye” by senior company management whose careers and remuneration are also reliant on bonuses, incentive schemes and sales targets.

 

15. In the light of the contentions made above, the Claimant asks that the court consider that an “unfair relationship” exists under the terms of section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Should the court decide that section 140A does not apply; the Claimant contends that the actions of the Defendant grossly contravene ordinary principles of fair dealing as outlined in section 138 of the Act, and therefore Agreement A and Agreement B should each be ruled as an “extortionate credit bargain”.

 

16. In considering this, and all matters in this claim, the Claimant asks the court to take into account the following Principles of Business which are legally binding on Capital One, under the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000, and are contained in the FSA Handbook:

 

Principle 1 Integrity - A firm must conduct its business with integrity.

 

Principle 2 Skill, care and diligence - A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence.

 

Principle 3 Management and control - A firm must take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems.

 

Principle 5 Market conduct - A firm must observe proper standards of market conduct.

 

Principle 6 Customers' interests - A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.

 

 

Principle 7 Communications with clients - A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading.

 

Principle 8 Conflicts of interest - A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client.

 

Principle 9 Customers: relationships of trust - A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment.

 

16. The Claimant contends that the Defendant has been given ample opportunity to seek a resolution to the matters raised in this claim, and their outright refusal to even enter into discussions is a clear breach of the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000.

 

17. The Claimant seeks the sums, as listed below, against the Defendant under Common Law, and/or section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974:

 

£1185.51 PPI Payments.

£2867.86 Compound interest @ the lenders purchase rate 20.89%.

Total £4053.37

 

18. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of

8% a year from 18/05/00 to 28/08/2011 of £2416.63

 

19. The claimant contends that the limitation act 1980 should not be used as a defense in this case as the claimant did not discover the PPI was added and optional until May 2011. Limitation act 1980 32(1)©

[missy]

Hi

 

Just checking in to see if anyone managed to have a look at my POC found in the post #33 above. If it is OK then I can get it submitted.

 

Thanks

[gregorious77]

You should PM andyorch and ask him to take a look.

It looks ok to me but still check.

[AndyOrch]

Looks fine Missy bit in depth but where are your costs?

 

Regards

 

Andy

[missy]

Hi Thank you for your advice.

 

Looks fine Missy bit in depth but where are your costs?

 

I am not sure which costs you mean. Do you mean the court costs?

 

Which bits should I take out to make it less in depth?

 

Thanks

 

Missy

[AndyOrch]

Hi Thank you for your advice.

 

 

 

I am not sure which costs you mean. Do you mean the court costs? Your Court Costs should it proceed to trial.

 

Which bits should I take out to make it less in depth? Just thin it out to the main points of contention try to lose case law and irrelevant points.No points for trying to impress the DJ or Defendant.The claim will be judged on it merits

 

 

Thanks

 

Missy

 

Regards

 

Andy

[gregorious77]

How are you getting on with your claim?

[missy]

Hi

 

Thanks for showing interest.

 

I dropped the papers off at court the other day and received the notice of issue today. Cap 1 now have to reply by the 7 Dec.

 

Missy

[gregorious77]

Cap 1 are defending my claim and dragging it all out!

They will have to get an employee to lie about the made up phone call!

[dx100uk]

i would suspect they are playing for time

and playing on your minds

they 'won' as such the other month

and appear to be playing the same games here

 

dx

[missy]

i would suspect they are playing for time

and playing on your minds

they 'won' as such the other month

and appear to be playing the same games here

 

What did they win?

[gregorious77]

Who did they win against and why/how?

[dx100uk]

look in the cap1 forum i would suspect

 

its on here

 

dx

[missy]

i would suspect they are playing for time

and playing on your minds

they 'won' as such the other month

and appear to be playing the same games here

 

dx

Hi

 

Cap 1 have to reply by today. I am at work so won't be able to check post. Can anyone offer advice as to my next course of action. Is it simply filling in form I received from the court?

[gregorious77]

They will put in acknowledgement just in time or late.

The court will for some reason accept this behaviour even though it is disrespectful and frustrating. they will probably file defence late as well if they defend which they probably will.

 

You should phone the court to find out if they have put in their acknowledgement yet.

[missy]

Got home from work to find an 'Notice that acknowledgement of service has been filed' and that cap 1 has 28 days to file a defence. I am not sure when the timer starts. Is it 28 days from the initial submission of claim or 28 days from when Cap 1 filed acknowledgement?

 

thanks

[gregorious77]

they have 28 days from service of the N1 with particulars of claim.

After you sent off the N1 you should have received a notice of issue, this will have a date for service on it, it is 28 days from that date so 14 days from today probably.

[missy]

Thank you Gregorious77

 

Cap 1 are defending my claim and dragging it all out!

They will have to get an employee to lie about the made up phone callicon!

 

How is your claim progressing?

 

missy