Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for that. I will give them till Tuesday. Thanks for your help, very much appreciated. 
    • Ok thanks for that, well spotted and all duly noted. Yes they did eventually submit those docs to me after a second letter advising them I was contacting the ICO to make a formal complaint for failing to comply with an earlier SAR that they brushed off as an "administrative error" or something. When I sent the letter telling them I was in contact with the information commissioner to lodge the complaint, the original PCN etc quickly followed along with their excuse!
    • its not about the migrants .. Barrister Helena Kennedy warns that the Conservatives will use their victory over Rwanda to dismantle the law that protects our human rights here in the UK.   Angela Rayner made fun of Rishi Sunak’s height in a fiery exchange at Prime Minister’s Questions, which prompted Joe Murphy to ask: just how low will Labour go? .. well .. not as low as sunak 
    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
  • 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
      • 161 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

Credit cards PPI


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3699 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

Ah right...got you.

 

Yes, you will see from the running sheet that there is a difference between the amount paid off when the account was settled and the reconstructed balance. Take the difference between those two figures and pop it into the other spreadsheet.

 

The date you use for the date of payment is the date the account was paid of and the "Claim To" date is the date of settlement of the claim.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks for the reply, the more i look at the offer the more it seems wrong.

 

the PPI had paid was about 200 more than they said I had the compound interest they have paid is a estimate they say I can contact them if I have prof of what rate I paid (which I do)

 

As I have said i didn't have all statements so kind of filled in the blanks from what I paid which was DD which was Min payment.

 

I also did the other spread sheet the one for compound interest and the compound interest came out at 1218.00 a lot more than the 229 they was offering, so guessing that was not they way to work that out.

 

so going to do the running spread sheet again, could I be cheeky and ask for a little more help please?

 

when you say" there is a difference between the amount paid off when the account was settled and the reconstructed balance. Take the difference between those two figures and pop it into the other spreadsheet."

 

 

where on the spread sheet would I get the numbers?

also am I right in thinking that i put that number into the 8% ss?

 

so them I ask for a refund of PPI paid + compound interest and then the 8 %

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK thanks.

 

The card appears to have been paid off in December 2001 and the balance cleared. Is that correct?

 

Have you sent them the evidence of the rate you were paying on the card?

 

For what periods have you put in estimated figures?

 

I am a bit confused as to what went on with the card from about July 03 ..... did the account get used again?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK thanks.

 

The card appears to have been paid off in December 2001 and the balance cleared. Is that correct?

Yes balance transferred onto another card

 

Have you sent them the evidence of the rate you were paying on the card?

 

No not yet but will do

 

For what periods have you put in estimated figures?

 

Jan 02 to July 03 i have no records (either statements or any payment from my bank)

the dates where I didn't have statements I have used my bank statements knowing it was set up for DD for min payment

 

I am a bit confused as to what went on with the card from about July 03 ..... did the account get used again?

 

Yeah by the looks of it I must have used it for something, they said I shut the account down in Sept 05 but I have only records up to the end date I have put

 

 

 

Hope this makes sense?

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so a few things come out of this.

 

First, your spreadsheet shows premiums of £987 and they say £728, a difference of £259. You need to find out why.

 

Second, the card was paid off in December 2001 with a balance difference of £1,392. This amount attracts 8% interest from the date of payment to the date of settlement.

 

Third, for the small amount of activity from Aug 03 to Feb 05 a separate sheet needs to be completed so that the contractual interest doesn't compound onto the old balance of £1,392. This makes your spreadsheet over stated by about £400.

 

What I would do is send them the evidence of the rate you were paying and require them to provide you with a detailed breakdown as to how their figures are arrived at. ince you don't have all the information and they apparently used an estimate of the card rate, there are too many unknowns to get to a verifiable solution.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a reply of Santander about my House of Fraser card basically saying too long ago and go away:!:

 

Back story

wrote in Sept they said sorry too long ago go away

 

wrote back with copies of statements and they not in so many words we wrote to you and told you we wouldn't investigate.

 

 

so hit a brick wall with that one :roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Off to fos then.

 

 

 

Santander have said in the letter "Due to the date that the insurance was sold the FOS does not have Jurisdiction over this complaint "

 

Thay told me to go to the FLA who said "Thank you for your e-mail. Unfortunately as Santander have confirmed that, due to the time elapsed and lack of information they are not able to look into your complaint, the FLA will not be able to consider your complaint either. Investigation of complaints about older agreements is difficult, due to a lack of historical information relating to the account. Current guidance permits a firm to reject a complaint without consideration, if the complaint falls outside of set time limits. Your complaint is older than six years and has been rejected for this reason. I am sorry that we are unable to assist you further"

 

So as you can see a brick wall indeed :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a reply off Halifax for my CC not upheld :(

they send me a copy of the form(from 1996) and there was a tick for PPI

 

so that case closed with them, I know when i applied i had a full time job with 6 months sick pay but only stopped there until 1998 until i got made redundant and moved to another job, but for the life of me I cant find my contract and the company in no-more in business so cant prove a thing.

Just glad it wasn't for much

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure all the ticks look the same( was a photo copy), as I have said was from 1996 so a long time ago so cant say for sure also was my first credit card so who knows :/

I did say in my complaint that if i did agree i would have been from being pushed as its a thing i would not normally do , but they have just basic y

said yes you agreed and here is the proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could challenge on the basis that it wasn't you who selected the PPI. If it has a "y" in the box would you normally use the letter "y" in a selection box?

 

Also have a read of Appendix 1 of the FSA handbook here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?305682-FSA-Handbook

 

You may fond some other useful information that you can use in your challenge.

 

The choice is yours as to whether to give on or keep fighting.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks ims21 , might give it one last go.

 

just re read the form that I signed and ticked and it doesn't say anything about a 30 day chance to cancel or that any other information would be provided with the terms and conditions, so how would I have known if the PPI was right for me? just says that it would cover me for death, unemployment or disability.

doesn't tell you how much and explain that you would have to pay interest on top of your payments, so to me there is not enough info to make you think it was suitable for my needs.

 

Will ring them in the morning and see what they say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so a few things come out of this.

 

First, your spreadsheet shows premiums of £987 and they say £728, a difference of £259. You need to find out why.

 

Second, the card was paid off in December 2001 with a balance difference of £1,392. This amount attracts 8% interest from the date of payment to the date of settlement.

 

Third, for the small amount of activity from Aug 03 to Feb 05 a separate sheet needs to be completed so that the contractual interest doesn't compound onto the old balance of £1,392. This makes your spreadsheet over stated by about £400.

 

What I would do is send them the evidence of the rate you were paying and require them to provide you with a detailed breakdown as to how their figures are arrived at. ince you don't have all the information and they apparently used an estimate of the card rate, there are too many unknowns to get to a verifiable solution.

 

 

Sent RBS the letter with copies of rates and also a copy of the spreadsheet and got a reply today.

 

"I would like to confirm that the offer we made is in line with the FOS and FSA guidance and takes into account the PPI paid plus the interest applied to them. the offer was made in full and final settlement of your complaint.

 

I hope this clarifies out total offer that we believe compensates your claim."

 

 

Question is as this was a goodwill offer and i know the offer doesn't stand if i go to the FOS, what happens if FOS decides not to uphold and i loose out all together, so should i just take the offer ?

 

(many thanks for any thoughts)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I didn't. in the offer later it did say that the interest rates they used was a estimate and if i had evidence of different rates i should send them and they would re calculate which they haven by the look of things.

 

So i will write asking for a break down and see where that gets me.

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...