Illegal and excessive charges

[DT&FE]

Friends

 

Firstly can I apologise for the 'multiple posts', but everyone on here especially the site team have given me the confidence to get myself back on track and sort things out, THANK YOU ALL.

 

The next dilemma

 

- in 1999, whilst living in Scotland, my wife and I took out a loan with Paragon for £15k,

 

shortly afterwards my wife became pregnant and we had to move to the other end of the country as my employer moved me.

 

With my wife losing her job and moving we found ourselves with less money than we had anticipated

 

we tried to use our PPI but were told pregnancy wasn't covered and that as I was still working we couldn't claim.

 

Within a year we were on reduced payments and despite requesting to have the intrest stopped Paragon refused.

 

In 2001 we stopped paying the PPI as it was pointless having it.

 

We carried on with reduced payments until 2006.

 

We had all the usual DCAs chasing us and stupidly (?) ignored them.

 

In 2009 we submitted a SAR to try and get all the information regarding the account which had been purchased by Arrow,

the reason was that they were demanding over 36k.

 

It turns out that we did actually repay approximately 9200 towards the original amount and it turns out £26,605.07

is made up of interest charges and 'sundry' charges which seems a bit extreme.

 

At one point Arrow offered us 'a unique discount of 65% and demanded 11k payment!

 

We calculate that we should owe around 6k,

there have been plenty of threats of court action but no 'actual action' (if that makes sense).

 

We actually sent SB letters to two sols and they dropped it,

 

Arrow have never come back and said it isn't either!

 

We believe that our last payment was in in Dec 2006,

 

however Arrow have sent us a statement showing two payments in 2008, we can't recall those!

 

My questions are:

 

1) As this was taken out in Scotland is it SB (5 year rule)

2) Are the charges/interest excessive

3) Waht do we do next?

 

Thanks for listening guys and gals

 

DT&FE

Edited January 22, 2013 by DT&FE
spelling

[dx100uk]

ah the typical spoof payment sham they pull

 

put them to strict proof as to whom and WHERE the payments came from.

 

as for the SB its 6yrs, you are res in england

 

however, you say you sar'd the OC?

 

those charges are UNLAWFUL not illegal

 

and can all be reclaimed

 

however, they are outside of 6yrs now so sadly they ARE sb'ed...funny eh!

 

have you got the details of the PPI

 

cause if you have

then you can reclaim that + the int it cost you

 

there is NO time limit on PPI .

 

and as the debt is sold

 

the reclaim goes to YOU!!

 

pers as they or someone have offered a discount

they'll go nowhere near a court

 

dx

[DT&FE]

DX Thanks!

 

So am I right

1) I can still claim the PPI even though Paragon said it was SB'd

2) I calim the PPI back off Paragon as the OC and it is nothing to do with Arrow as the debt was 'sold'

2) The interest charges are unlawful (how do I claim them back?)

 

I have also been told that Paragon won a landmark case in Oct 2012 which meant they do not have to repay PPI

Edited January 22, 2013 by DT&FE

[Staraker]

DX Thanks!

I have also been told that Paragon won a landmark case in Oct 2012 which meant they do not have to repay PPI

 

Presumably this one: Court case ruling helps bury PPI mis-selling claims

[anynewmouse]

Presumably this one: Court case ruling helps bury PPI mis-selling claims

 

I think that was more about the costs the Lawyers ran up against that of the potential claim.

[dx100uk]

yes absolutely NOTHING to do with the PPI itself.

 

dx

[dx100uk]

DX Thanks!

 

So am I right

1) I can still claim the PPI even though Paragon said it was SB'd - yes

2) I calim the PPI back off Paragon as the OC and it is nothing to do with Arrow as the debt was 'sold' - correct

2) The interest charges are unlawful (how do I claim them back?) - not said that

I have also been told that Paragon won a landmark case in Oct 2012 which meant they do not have to repay PPI

 

as aboce that case was NOTIg to do with the actual PPI

 

but stupid lawyers costs

 

dx

[Staraker]

I think that was more about the costs the Lawyers ran up against that of the potential claim.

 

ISTM that they won a ruling on a certain type of PPI claim. The issue of costs is separate, but the prospect of the claimant being saddled with them is probably seen as a useful scare tactic to Paragon et al. Paragon itself may never see their costs reimbursed from that particular claimant, but they might consider it as a long-term 'win' in dissuading others from claiming in the first place.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Staraker

[dx100uk]

they can see it as they wish

it was nowt to do with the PPI issue

but a prat of a lawyer

 

dx

[Staraker]

they can see it as they wish

it was nowt to do with the PPI issue

but a prat of a lawyer

 

dx

 

Have you actually read the article? It clearly states: “The court found that there could be no unfair relationship between Mrs Plevin and Paragon and also decided against Mrs Plevin’s claim under section 18 of the Consumer Credit Act that the PPI agreement was incorrectly executed and therefore unenforceable.”

 

She lost her PPI case, and it was only then that the issue of costs came up.

[dx100uk]

thats not a ppi reclaim!

 

it was an un-en ruling that the agreement that contained PPI was enforceable.

 

dx

[Staraker]

thats not a ppi reclaim!

 

it was an un-en ruling that the agreement that contained PPI was enforceable.

 

dx

 

I think you'll have to be a bit more coherent in explaining exactly what you think it was, then.

 

As I read it, Plevin was seeking repayment of the PPI on the grounds that it was mis-sold. The court ruled that - at least on the grounds contended - it was not mis-sold. If Plevin was not seeking to reclaim the PPI, what do you think the whole case was about?

 

If we assume that the PPI was sold to the OP in exactly the same way as it was to Plevin, Paragon can presumably claim that if the latter's attempt to reclaim the PPI has been legally rebuffed, then so can anyone else's attempt to reclaim.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Staraker

[Let Them Knock]

From the link to the report:

 

Paragon had made a without prejudice offer to Mrs Plevin back in 2010 on a commercial basis simply to see an end of the litigation

 

Beyond that it was all down to the greed and incompetence of the lawyer.

[Staraker]

From the link to the report:

 

Paragon had made a without prejudice offer to Mrs Plevin back in 2010 on a commercial basis simply to see an end of the litigation

 

Beyond that it was all down to the greed and incompetence of the lawyer.

 

Which isn't the only issue. The court didn't rule that the PPI was not mis-sold to Plevin (and therefore she couldn't reclaim) because her lawyers had racked up huge bills.

[citizenB]

Almost certainly the claim brought was not best researched - it was foolish of Plevin not to accept the offer made. And it does actually look to me as though the intent was more to declare the whole agreement unenforceable rather than with any claim for the PPI !

 

The court found that there could be no unfair relationship between Mrs Plevin and Paragon and also decided against Mrs Plevin’s claim under section 18 of the Consumer Credit Act that the PPI agreement was incorrectly executed and therefore unenforceable.”

 

and further..

 

 

 

 

Legal fees

Mrs Plevin’s legal representatives, Miller Gardner, ran up costs amounting to £320,000 by the time of trial, against a maximum claim value of some £5,000, yet failed to get to the bottom of the factual case.

Paragon had made a without prejudice offer to Mrs Plevin back in 2010 on a commercial basis simply to see an end of the litigation, which was rejected by Miller Gardner.

 

Hayles continued: “Recorder Yip QC held that as a result, and given her ‘real concerns’ over Miller Gardner’s conduct, it would be appropriate to order that Mrs Plevin pay Paragon’s costs on the indemnity basis in relation to the entirety of the action.

 

“This is the strongest order that a court can make and is illustrative of the displeasure with which Miller Gardner’s conduct was regarded. It was clear from the amount in question that the litigation had been run only to benefit Mrs Plevin’s solicitors and not to achieve the best result for her.

 

“Given the findings by the Court of Appeal in Harrison and Recorder Yip QC in Plevin, claimant solicitors now have little chance of successfully continuing with court claims in relation to PPI mis-selling.

“Further, the courts are now very much alive to the fact that such claims cannot be regarded as being in borrowers’ best interests. The industry that has grown up around PPI should beware.”

[DT&FE]

OK game on,

Paragon have effectively 'lied' in their written response saying that it was SB'd under the Limitations act 1980 (as it came from their legal department.....ignorance is no excuse etc.), I assume any DJ would see this as naughty and 'lean' towards the defendant?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Emm I think a concientious DJ would want to review why that statement was made and the reasons leading to the statement being made before leaning in any direction.

[DT&FE]

Brig I will defer to your better judgement..........are you saying game off?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Brig I will defer to your better judgement..........are you saying game off?

 

No, such matters really are for the consideration of a court, ie what basis is there for the statement that the claim is subject to the Limitations Act.

 

I casn see both sides of the argument and want to hear it argued, but that could be a prolonged and expensive process as seen in citizen B advice.

 

This can only be your decision to proceed or not, if you decide to go on I would suggest that you seek qualified advice locally.

[citizenB]

I think if Arrow have claimed two payments were made in 2008 - you should be establishing whether or not they were.

 

You could make a Subject Access Request to the company that had possession of the account at that time - these payments should be recorded. How did you usually make your payments. When was the last time you believe you made a payment.

 

If say in 2006 for example.. why would you suddenly make two unrelated payments in 2008 and then no more after ? What was the value of these two payments Arrow claim were made ?

 

It has been known for "phantom" payments to be made in order to mislead the debtor/account holder into believing they were made by them. It could have been an adjustment made by the original creditor or refund of charges.. a SAR or CCA request could have been made and the fee applied to the account - this would be an unsolicited payment and nothing to do with the debtor and would not reset the SB clock.

[ericsbrother]

cropped up before, the company claims your uncle Ned paid £4.32 on your behalf. This is, of course, nonsense as the money has to be paid by you, not some unkonwn benefactor precisely because of these sorts of unfounded claims that the debt is still live.

[DT&FE]

Ericsbrother....thanks can they get away with this?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Yes if you don't challenge the alleged payment in full detail.