Yes Car Credit PPI REclaim *** Resolved***

[dx100uk]

hi can anyone help me? I have started a ppi claim against yes car credit. Iv sent a letter with a 10 pound postal order asking for a copy of all the information they hold on me with. After about six week I received a disc with every thing on it along with a letter with instruction on how to decript the disc. This all has the yes car credit logo on it. I then sent them the questionnaire explaining my complaint. Another six weeks past and I received a letter from Santander Consumer Finance saying they had investigated my claim for ppi and had no record of me. Can anyone please tell me if A) yes car credit/Provident have now been purchased by Santander now and B) if the have been purchased by Santander are the stupid.

 

you need to start your own thread.

 

see the video below

 

dx

[ukdarrenfan]

Anybody?

[ukdarrenfan]

I've changed the POC a bit more now. Can somebody please let me know what they think? Should I change anything, add case law, more legal points? I really need help here, I want to get this sorted asap and I need it to be right. Thanks.

[steampowered]

A few thoughts:

 

1) Before going into a description of the selling process, you need to explain why mis-selling is a breach of the Defendant's legal obligations. Post 54 here might give you some ideas: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?368967-Barclaycard-PPI-but-account-been-in-dispute-for-4.5-years/page3

 

2) Why are you referring to section 56 CCA? I don't understand what point you are making with this reference. I think you are trying to say that the Defendant is liable for the statements and representations made by its agent, but best to make it clear.

 

3) I am uncomfortable with this allegation about commissions. Unless you actually know for a fact that the staff were rewarded with 90% commissions you should not allege it.

 

4) I would remove the stuff about the BBC documentary unless it actually relates to the Defendant. The judge is not going to sit down and watch the documentary. You should not be citing things just to mud-sling in a general sense. You need to prove that you were mis-sold in breach of the Defendant's legal obligations. If you want to refer to the documentary you need to be very specific about what the documentary shows about the Defendant, what you are using this to prove and why it is relevant to your case.

 

5) Remove "the Defendant states". Don't make their arguments for them - just state your case and they will defend it.

 

6) How much are you claiming and how has that been calculated? Its not clear.

 

7) Add this wording:

 

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:

(1) The sum of £[AMOUNT].

(2) statutory interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 on the amount found to be due to him at such rate and for such period as the court thinks fit.

(3) Costs.

[ukdarrenfan]

Thanks for looking.

 

With regards to a couple of your points above

(2) I am referring to Section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act - Antecedent Negotiations. I am just unsure how to word it. I wasn't sure which legal angle to use, whether this, or misrepresentation.

 

(3) Regarding the commissions, it was stated by somebody else on here, that she spoke to the person who was the 'Whistleblower' from the BBC documentary and he told her that there was a substantial monthly bonus in place for staff if more than 90% of customers took up insurance.

 

(4) I am making references to the BBC Documentary and other online documentation as this shows that sales staff lied to customers and forced them to take out policies. It shows that we were not the only ones who were lied to and that they did it often. I feel that by referring to these online articles it clearly shows that the Defendant habitually missold these policies. All of these articles can be provided for a court bundle if necessary.

 

I haven't finished the Particulars of claim yet, but I was going to add the wording as in point 7. In order to show how the amount has been calculated it needs to be pointed out that the vehicle deposit being wrongly taken from the insurance has changed all the amounts on the invoice.

[steampowered]

(2) The effect of section 56 is to makes the finance company liable for what you were told by the salesperson who negotiated the contract. But it will not help you demonstrate that what the salesperson said creates liability. I think you need to add an allegation that the salesperson misrepresented the terms of the insurance contract and that you relied on that misrepresentation. This is already implicit from what you say about being told the PPI was mandatory but best to state it expressly.

 

(3) You will surely be challenged on this. What you heard from a friend of a friend won't stand up in a courtroom. I think it will be more credible if you just allege the salespeople were on commissions and leave out the 90%.

 

(4) I think you should proceed on the basis that it will be necessary. As I say the judge won't watch the documentary so you need to be including what he needs to read in the bundles and drawing his attention to the relevant parts.

[ukdarrenfan]

Thanks once again for your help. So I should go for misrepresentation rather than antecedent negotiations then?

 

With regards to point 3 I will just state commissions and take out the 90%

 

I have copies of all the relevant documentation that I need to rely on. This includes online articles, a press release regarding the BBC documentary, etc and everything relevant is highlighted. I also have copies of the agreement and other documentation from my SAR agreement which also highlights what I am alleging regarding the deposit

 

Thanks

[steampowered]

Misrepresentation is a claim. s56 CCA is not a claim, it is just a statement that the finance company is liable for the acts of the salesperson. There are two stages here: first you need legal liability created by the acts of the salesperson (misrepresentation), second you need to pin that on the finance company (s56). Best to include them both.

[ukdarrenfan]

Misrepresentation is a claim. s56 CCA is not a claim, it is just a statement that the finance company is liable for the acts of the salesperson. There are two stages here: first you need legal liability created by the acts of the salesperson (misrepresentation), second you need to pin that on the finance company (s56). Best to include them both.

 

Thanks. I will attempt a re-write over the next couple of days and post it up again!

[ukdarrenfan]

So am I claiming fraudulent misrepresentation? Doesn't this reverse the burden of proof?

[steampowered]

Not necessarily fraudulent misrepresentation. Innocent and negligent misrepresentation are equally actionable. Since you are only claiming damages I don't think it matters a great deal. Proving fraud becomes important when you are looking to rescind the entire contract or are claiming for a type of loss that is normally too remote to be recovered ... but not the case here.

 

For the purposes of the POC I don't think you need to get into the issue of what type of representation we are dealing with. I would just stick with the basics - (1) what the representation was, (2) why it is false and (3) a statement that you relied on it.

[ukdarrenfan]

Not necessarily fraudulent misrepresentation. Innocent and negligent misrepresentation are equally actionable. Since you are only claiming damages I don't think it matters a great deal. Proving fraud becomes important when you are looking to rescind the entire contract or are claiming for a type of loss that is normally too remote to be recovered ... but not the case here.

 

For the purposes of the POC I don't think you need to get into the issue of what type of representation we are dealing with. I would just stick with the basics - (1) what the representation was, (2) why it is false and (3) a statement that you relied on it.

 

So I don't need to quote any relevant case law?

[steampowered]

So I don't need to quote any relevant case law?

 

It is not standard practice to include case-law in the POC, I would leave it out. I imagine any dispute about this will be a dispute about the facts (i.e. they will question whether a misrepresentation was made) rather than a dispute about legal principle. If they do raise legal issues you can use relevant case-law at the hearing.

[Mr Biggles]

I have a letter from Irwin Mitchell stating that all salespeople received commission for selling the insurance policies, it does not state what %they got, i can make this available .

Regards

 

Mr Biggles

[ukdarrenfan]

Yes please Mr Biggles. That would be really helpful.

[ukdarrenfan]

I've changed the POC now but I'm not still not sure on how to word the 'legal' bit. Can you let me know if it's sounding better and how best to word the bit that I've highlighted.Thanks

[steampowered]

I think the yellow bit is fine.

[ukdarrenfan]

So is that ok to get started with the claim now do you think?

[steampowered]

Best to add the wording in part 7 of post #205 or something similar. It is advisable to include a statement that you are claiming costs (will probably only get court fees in small claims track) and a statement of how much you are claiming (before interest) ... to ensure small claims.

[ukdarrenfan]

Just a couple more questions and I think I'm about ready to start this claim!

 

When I am working out the court interest, do I take the number of days from the date of the last payment? Also, do I need to send anything at all with the court claim? A copy of the agreement? Anything else?

 

Does it include any issues under the Human Rights Act?

 

Am I allowed to act as a McKenzie friend for my husband, who's agreement it is, and how do I go about this?

Edited July 23, 2013 by ukdarrenfan

[ukdarrenfan]

So I think I'm about ready to send this to the court now. I have 3 copies of the N1 form, do I also need 3 copies of the agreement? Anything else (apart from the payment obviously!) This is scary. Should I include any of the articles that I've referenced in my POC?

[steampowered]

Hi,

 

Regarding interest - it is slightly more calculated. Interest should be calculated from the date on which the PPI was paid. If you paid PPI fees each month, interest would run from each month in respect of that month's payment. There is a calculator in one of the stickied threads on this forum.

 

No to any issues under the Human Rights Act.

 

Yes, you are allowed to act as a McKenzie friend for your husband. In small claims track you can actually go further and should be able to represent him, as long as he is physically present in the courtroom. Note that the claim form should be in his name and that he should sign the statement of truth on court documents.

 

The claim form sent to the court, copy retained by you and copy sent to the other side should all be the same. Your other side can ask to see copies of any documents mentioned in your POC, and you will certainly need copies later in the proceedings, but no need to attach them to the N1 at this stage.

[ukdarrenfan]

Thanks. I do already have a spreadsheet that I sent to them earlier, but that works out the simple interest and the court interest is worked out differently. The amount owing before interest is £3199.52. If I do the spreadsheet, the interest is £2863.70, but how do I do it for the court? The spreadsheet is calculating the simple interest from Day 1, is that how it should be? All I've read says that you should calcalute the interest from the day the debt became due, but that confuses me all the more. Do I calculate from the beginning (as per the spreadsheet and work out the daily rate from that) or the end date? I'm fine with everything apart from that! And I can't send anything until that's sorted! Thanks

Edited July 29, 2013 by ukdarrenfan

[steampowered]

If you paid PPI payments each month, ideally you would need to calculate the interest separately in respect of each payment since you would have made several payments on different dates; and interest will only begin to run from the date of payment.

 

If you aren't sure it is probably best just to state you are claiming interest at 8% per annum pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act 1984 and leave it at that. It is not strictly necessary to calculate the exact total for the purposes of the POC. If you are successful in principle the exact figure for interest can be worked out later. I do not think this is something to focus on too much on for the moment.

[ukdarrenfan]

So on the N1 form I don't actually have to include the interest in the 'amount claimed' box? Just the amount for the PPI and the court fee? As long as I state that I'm claiming interest at 8% that can be worked out later. Is that right? If I don't include the interest it brings my court fee down to £120 rather than £245.

 

Ah, just realised that in writing that section, you have to state the date that the money became owed to you. Would that be the start date of the agreement? And finally (sorry) I definitely don't include the AMOUNT of interest that I'm claiming in the amount claimed box on the N1 form?

Edited July 29, 2013 by ukdarrenfan