Ocean Finance PPI - has anyone submitted a claim to these?

[willerby20]

Unfortunately our home was repossessed by Swift in late 2006, after falling into arrears.

 

Our first charge to the property was ok (mortgage).

 

After reading this forum for the first time (today) I was amazed how similar our stories are.

 

I would like to share my PPI claim up to now...... ( starting with no prior paperwork)

 

Written to swift on the 17/01 to request T+C's and agreement for the account.

 

No reply after 15 days, but a quick call and had the info the following day.

 

In the meantime I have also asked for a final statement/invoice following the sale of the property, which happened some six months after the reposession.

 

I have been advised that all invoices for this period are now archived off site in no particular order, and may take time to retrieve.

 

in the meantime I have a PPI value to which I am forwarding a claim this week, thinking of using the FOS questionaire???

 

However bearing in mind the loan only ran from 2004 - 2006 - pro rata refund,do you think?

 

beyond the PPI I think there maybe some mileage into the sale of the house "excessive charges"

 

Any guidance on the above or share the same route would be great, thanks

[ims21]

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

Was the PPI a single premium front loaded or a fixed monthly amount each month paid separately to the mortgage?

 

What are the reasons you have for mis-selling?

 

Fos questionnaire would be a wise move as would preparing a schedule of claim (spreadsheet). Use the first one here..

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?330996-Latest-Spreadsheets-PPI-Claims-and-Charges-Claims-Dec-2011

 

Can you explain a bit more about the excessive charges you mention?

 

ims

[willerby20]

Hi,

Thanks for your reply,

 

The PPI was loaded up front at £6580 for a 300 month term, however I do realise the "cover will automatically end five years from the date of the agreement......" (quote).

 

The reason for misselling, am unsure how to word this - even though my wife and myself show that we signed the agreement.

 

I can't remember whether they insisted on the policy at the time of signing etc.

 

I had good employment at the time, with 27 years service, paid sick pay and benefits for 26 weeks (full pay).

 

The loan effectively ran for 26 months until repossession, however the property only sold 6 months later.

 

According to the agreement the policy would be cancelled if the property was repossessed.

Based on this period, could the full amount be claimed.

 

As regards excessive charges, I believe they may have charged unfair charges on arrears,

exit charges for early redemption and a possible 2.5% extra on top of the loan being paid in full, 2.5% representing to the value of the property.

 

I can't confirm this until I've seen the final statement.

 

Will keep you informed.

[ims21]

Hi

 

OK as regards the PPI you can reclaim the whole lot and the interest they charged you and a further 8% on top.

 

Have a read of No.1 in my signature as there is a lot of information there about calculating your claim amount and a spreadsheet at the end to help you.

 

Also in the PPI stickies there is a list of criteria for mis-selling. Telling you that you had to have their PPI to get the loan is reason enough. It can probably be backed up in that the true cost was not explained to you. Usually there are three or four criteria that apply to a mis-selling case.

 

ims

[42man]

I also think you should send a Subject Access Request too (will cost £10 - send recorded delivery) you could find this quite revealing.....

[willerby20]

Here's a quick update:-

 

SAR sent recorded. Using the template letter from here.

 

FOS questionaire re; PPI to Swift.

Quick reply the day after, quoting Swift are declining responsibilty for the PPI, as the broker takes ownership of the product - in this case Ocean Finance.

However after reading similar stories on this site, it appears the response is to fob people off the case.

 

Considering I have the original loan agreement and t+c's (copies), the loan and PPI etc are agreed by "us,we" and signed for by Swift

- therefore the complaint should still lie with them.

 

I wrote to OF in January requesting t+c's etc for Swift and GE(seperate loan years previous)

- responding that all comms should be directed to the lender(s) as OF were just the broker at the time of application.

 

So who owned the PPI?

 

thanks

[willerby20]

Either may say different, however if the agreement and premiums indicate, in our case the lender and signed for by both parties, the lender is responsible.

 

willerby20

[willerby20]

SAR now received - yes very revealing, numerous charges etc.

 

There is no evidence that the PPI was refunded to the account when the house was repossessed - as the agreement states.

 

I assume the full £6580 was debited to the account when the property was sold, further digging needed i think.

 

A lot of transaction history blanked out too.

 

The estate agent who handled the sale were paid £6k+ from the equity!!!!!

 

next steps:-

1. Still need to understand who owns the PPI - broker or lender

2. Fill in the CAG spreadsheet with all the relevant charges (less legal fees) along with a template letter etc

3. Investigate the estate agents fees , as no breakdown was given .

 

thanks

[willerby20]

Hi all

 

Our PPI was arranged through Ocean and the lender was Swift. We have been advised to take the claim through the broker.

Has anyone had this experience, where the broker is responsible?

 

thanks

[ims21]

Hi willerby

 

If you use the search facility (top right) you will find other threads about Ocean.

 

I this the same issue as your "Swift" thread?

 

Typically you would always start a claim with the lender in the first instance

 

ims

[dx100uk]

three threads merged on the same issue

 

please kep to one thread per claim.

 

dx

[dx100uk]

whomever you were PAYING your PCM to is your target

 

i would also think section 56 might apply here too?

 

56.

— (1) In this Act “antecedent negotiations ” means any negotiations with the debtor or hirer—

(a) conducted by the creditor or owner in relation to the making of any regulated agreement, or

(b) conducted by a credit-broker in relation to goods sold or proposed to be sold by the credit-broker to the creditor before forming the subject-matter of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(a), or

© conducted by the supplier in relation to a transaction financed or proposed to be financed by a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement and “negotiator ” means the person by whom negotiations are so conducted with the debtor or hirer.

[willerby20]

thanks ims

 

Yes, this the same thread as the previous Swift one.

 

I still believe the PPI claim should lie with the lender, as all premiums and agreements were paid/signed with the lender. They have rejected my claim, with a standard letter describing that Ocean have ownership?

In addition, when the house was repossessed the PPI should have been credited to the account (remaining amount) estimated at 5k. The SAR proves this never happened.

I have been in contact with the FSA this week, and they advise that the PPI claim should be directed to Ocean (broker)???

 

any suggestions?

 

thanks

willerby20

[willerby20]

thanks dx100uk too

[ims21]

Was this a regulated agreement? If so the section posted by dx above is relevant.

 

Do you mean that you have been in touch with teh FSA or fos?

 

ims

 

PS I see dx has merged your threads now

[willerby20]

hi

the loan was unregulated during october 2004 - loan taken out and closed April 2007. The unregulation may be an issue.

[willerby20]

been in touch with the FSA too

[willerby20]

Hi all

 

Re; section 56 (of which act?), in layman terms could someone explain what the above extract means. Am I assuming that the lender is responsible for the PPI ownership.

All the terms and conditions and premiums were paid direct to the lender and not the broker.

Furthermore, I would like to quote section 56 in our case to them.

thanks

[dx100uk]

cca but yours is un regged so no dice

 

dx

[willerby20]

unregulated loan - so a harder nut to crack?

 

However the whole PPI fiasco across the industry, could lend a possible success against these (i hope)

 

ta