Jump to content


Shop Direct - help with Extra Care 500 & Extra Care Advantage reclaiming POC


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4142 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

Hi, just doing a claim for mam!

 

I've filled in FosRunningPPI v101.xls (I have all statements)

(Interest Rate + Statement date + Monthly Spend + Monthly Payment + PPI Premium)

 

In the "Award Calculation" Box, all fiquires are there apart from the "8% Simple Interest - £0.00".

 

I can't fiquire out why it is not calculating the simple interest, any ideas?

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

the notes do say...

 

This fourth spreadsheet is useful in calculating a regulatory based compound interest award for PPI on a Revolving Credit Account. Not all statements are required for this sheet because it will work out the compound interest on the PPI payments you do know about. It will not work out the additional 8% interest, to do that you will need spreadsheet three above AND all of your statements.

 

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

Hi dx, I'm not using the Fourth spreadsheet!

 

Quote
This third spreadsheet is a calculator that will work out a fos based PPI award on a Revolving Credit Account such as a credit card. It will also work out the additional 8% interest awarded where the account moves into credit as a result of the removal of the PPI from the account. Be aware that you will need ALL of the account statements for this spreadsheet to give the correct result.

 

FosRunningPPI v101.xls

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ims :-)

 

Yes, there is all £0.00's in column K (8% interest on Credit Balance).

 

Yes, the account was paid off 5 years ago, thanks

 

Ok so the award that the sheet has worked out is effectively the difference between the closing balance as it was when the card was settled and the revised balance with the removal of the PPI.

 

A regulatory award in a situation such as this is that they will refund you that difference plus 8% simple on that amount running from the date of paying off the account to the date of settlement of the claim.

 

All you need to do is work out the simple interest on the award shown on the spreadsheet.

 

StatIntSheet v101.xls

 

In the above spreadsheet enter the award amount shown on your first sheet...the date you enter should be the date the account was closed. "Claim to" date is today. You will have just one entry in this sheet and it will work out the 8% for you.

 

Just as a note for anyone reading...this does not apply to accounts that are still live.

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again ims!

 

Have done what you said and its looking good,

 

Only a small amount but every little helps!

Not bad on a small CC (£1200 credit limit)

 

Monthly Cost of PPI: £165.30

Compound Interest: £55.93

8% simple interest = £75.68

Total Claim (today date) = £296.91

 

Am I right to follow this method? (As in charges reclaim)

Send Prelim demanding amount by cheque.

Their questionaire reply or somesort of reply... ignore and bin.

2 weeks after prelim send lba with updated fiquire.

2 weeks after lba file N1.

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well what you do now depends on the route you take.

 

If you go the court route the onus of proof of mis-selling will be on you as the claimant. So you have to consider whether you can prove that fact on the balance of probability.

 

Also if you are going the court route you can claim pure compound interest in restitution (see No.4 in my signature).

 

Essentially the route for court will be as you describe -> Prelim Letter -> LBA -> Issue.

 

 

The figures you have worked out above would be what the regulator would award and if you choose this option then you would send the spreadsheet and a completed fos questionnaire to the lender with a brief letter requiring refund. The lender will have 8 weeks to investigate and give you a final decision before you can pass it to fos to deal with.

 

The fos questionnaire is available from the fos website.

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ims, thanks for your time

 

I think Court route could be worth a shot on this one.

As its a small amount I am hoping they will settle before Court...

 

My mum has more PPI claims, so I guess it will be good experience for me to pursue this by myself without fos,

 

Thanks mate, will get to work over the weekend :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I sent my local court my N1 Claim Form, POC etc

 

However, it has been returned and they state:

 

County Court Money Claims Service in Wales

 

With effect from 19 March 2012, all Part 7 designated money claims

are now to be issued from the County Court Money Claims Centre (CCMCC)

in Salford, instead of your local county court.

 

We are therefore unable to process your summons request received at this court today,

and are returning the summons, together with your fee, for you to sent on to the CCMCC

at Salford to issue.

 

Contact details are set out below:

 

County Court Money Claims Centre (Wales)

PO BOX 552

Salford

M5 0EG

 

Nevermind, found the info:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?342764

Edited by TheDude1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi

I've received SAR back from a catalogue company.

 

On the statements it is just showing the items purchased, interest charged but no insurance data, however they did include the total amount of premiums paid on a seperate sheet and the date insurance commenced.

 

Am I right to reclaim:

1. Premiums paid

2. Compound interest at their rate ie 34.9%

3. 8% simple interest

 

If the above is correct, how do you calculate compound if you don't have individual dates and fiquires?

 

Thanks for any help

Edited by TheDude1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Things to check first...

 

1 Are you sure the list of PPI payments relates to the account for which they have sent you statements?

 

2 Does the maths on the statements work out?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ims, yes it is just 1 company.

 

I don't have a list of premiums paid, no dates and no individual amounts. They only sent the total premium amount paid to date.

 

They did send a few statements, but these are only recent statements (late 2011 to 2012) and these did include individual premiums paid and dates.

 

To be honest, it looks like they have re-produced the real statement history via excel spreadsheet (all of it going back to 2007) and have purposely omitted the individual premium charges/dates.

 

I know I can calculate simple 8% interest from the total fiquire I have, but obviously this does not include compound interest.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd send the failed SAR letter with specific reference to requiring a FULL transaction history/copy statements and the individual PPI payments.

 

Ask them why they have omitted the PPI payments from the transaction history and you want their written response to this question for forwarding to the ICO

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi

Hoping for some guidance!

 

Shop Direct have ignored my letter before action and I stated to them (in lba) that I will not be pursuing the matter through the fos.

 

So I am preparing my claim against them.

 

This is my POC so far, bits extracted from other's people PPI poc and also my own input,

I would appreciate if anyone can suggest alterations etc before issuing, many thanks!

 

___________________________________

1. The Claimant had a credit agreement account no xxxxxxxx ("the Agreement") with the Defendant which was opened on or around **/**/****.

2. The Claimant contends that;

3. The Extra Care 500 & Extra Care Advantage (“the Insurance”) was added to the account despite it not being requested.

 

4. The claimant contends that they have not signed any agreement for the Insurance with Shop Direct Finance Company Ltd.

5. The claimant contends that they did not receive any Insurance terms and conditions from Shop Direct Finance Company Ltd.

6. The Claimant contends that the Insurance relating to the Agreement was not suitable for purpose because they were un-employed at the time plus other various reasons.

7. The Claimant contends that the Defendant did not carry out adequate checks in order to establish whether or not the Insurance was suitable for the Claimant i.e. any pre-existing medical conditions that would affect the Insurance policy.

Page 1 of 3

8. The claimant contends that they would not have knowingly agreed to the Insurance in any circumstances.

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

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 the Insurance to the account, and that therefore Shop Direct Finance Company Ltd 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 Shop Direct Finance Company Ltd to meet its obligations under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

13. The Claimant contends that the Insurance 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 Shop Direct Finance Company Ltd, 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.

Page 2 of 3

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.

17. 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.

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

And the Claimant claims;

(1) A declaration that the Insurance premiums paid from xx/xx/xxxx to xx/xx/xxxx totaling £xxx.xx were wrongly paid to the Defendant by the Claimant.

(2) Payment of the said sum of £xxx.xx and compound interest @ the lenders purchase rate of 26.92% from xx/xx/xxxx to xx/xx/xxxx for the sum of £xxx.xx.

(3) Interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from xx/xx/xxxx to xx/xx/2012 of £xxx.xx and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.37 OR at such rates and for such periods the Court deems just.

(4) The claimant contends that the Limitation act 1980 32(1)© should not be used as a defense in this case as the claimant did not discover the Insurance was added and optional until Jan 2012.

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these particulars, comprising of 3 pages, are true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I’ve subscribed to this thread because I’m about to start the ball rolling for reclaiming both PPI & charges from Shop Direct. I have my own thread somewhere in here & will update it soon but you are one or two steps ahead of me and I will be very interested to see what/how SD react to a legal claim via court.

Ive SAR’d them, worked out my PPI refund (I was mortified when I realised I was paying this – at times £30 per month!). So in the next day or two I will be sending them a ‘refund me’ letter but I don’t hold much hope. So, I’m fully prepared, after eight weeks to take legal action.

Current Debt : Approx £LOTS :-( ........................................................................Estimated Debt Free : Nov 2014 :-D

 

Barclaycard (wife) £1,080.43 Refunded

Barclaycard (me) SAR in progress

Shop Direct (x3 accounts) SAR completed. Claiming £3389.37 charges and £3,500 PPI

MBNA ..........SAR in progress. Charges & PPI from 1996 - present!

 

Your next ----> Lloyds Mastercard x2 - OPUS - Coop Visa - Monument Visa - RBS Visa - Cap One Visa x2 - Redcats x2

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, I'm going for a Court claim against a bank for mis-sold PPI (early 2006 to 2008), I don't want to go the FOS route...

 

Need a second opinion with certain bits of my POC... Please suggest if ok or adjust with better sentances!

 

7. The Claimant contends that the PPI relating to the Agreement was not suitable for purpose because they were unemployed at the time and the Insurance would have been void should they did want to use the Insurance.

 

8. The Claimant contents that the Defendant should of carried out adequate checks to ensure the PPI was suitable for the Claimant.

 

13. 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”.

 

19. The claimant contends that the Limitation act 1980 32(1)© should not be used as a defense in this case as the claimant did not discover the PPI was added and optional until May 2012.

 

Many thanks for any help!

Link to post
Share on other sites

7. change last line, remove 'they did want to use the insurance' and add 'they have found themselves making a claim'.

 

8. The Claimant contends that the Defendant should have carried out adequate checks to ensure that the Claimant qualified for the product known as PPI.

 

19. Change defense to defence.

 

Also, was the applicant forced to take PPI in order to gain the loan/card? Did you serve notice before action against the bank?

Link to post
Share on other sites

7. change last line, remove 'they did want to use the insurance' and add 'they have found themselves making a claim'.

 

8. The Claimant contends that the Defendant should have carried out adequate checks to ensure that the Claimant qualified for the product known as PPI.

 

19. Change defense to defence.

 

Also, was the applicant forced to take PPI in order to gain the loan/card? Did you serve notice before action against the bank?

 

Great, thank you for your input mate, POC is now updated :-) Cheers pal

 

It was a credit card, I have a copy of the CCA and no box was ticked for PPI (it was optional), in other words they added the cover without my consent as I did not want/or request the insurance (I have this in my poc).

 

And yes prelim was sent and still waiting on a reply from the LBA, they have 2 weeks to cough up before I submit the N1 !

Thanks again for the help

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they added the PPI without consent then that also needs to be used.

 

That will form part of your evidence if they don't fold when they receive the N1 :)

 

Go get them !!

 

Hehe, it's the first few paragraphs in the POC !

 

2. The Claimant contends that;

 

3. The Payment Protection Insurance (“the Insurance”) was added to the account despite it not being requested.

 

4. The claimant did NOT tick the box for Payment Protection Insurance on the application form for the credit card.

5. The claimant contends that a true copy of the Credit Agreement supplied by x x x x shows that NO box was ticked for Payment Protection Insurance.

 

6. The claimant contends that they have not signed any agreement for Payment Protection Insurance with x x x x.

 

7. The claimant contends that they did not receive any Payment Protection Insurance terms and conditions from x x x x.

 

8. The Claimant contends that the Payment Protection Insurance relating to the Agreement was not suitable for purpose because they were unemployed at the time and the Payment Protection Insurance would have been void should they have found themselves making a claim.

 

9. The Claimant contents that the Defendant should of carried out adequate checks to ensure that the Claimant qualified for the Payment Protection Insurance.

 

 

edit sp

Edited by TheDude1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...