Hillards v On Line Finance (GMAC)

[hillards]

As we've looked at previous PPI claim possibilities we have also looked at earlier loans that were paid off using newer loans, something we should never have done, but this was all pre CAG

 

My wife bought a car at Carcraft Sheffield in March 2002. She was pressured into buying by the salesmen who messed her about for ages saying they were having problems getting finance for her. Familiar story now I've read a few threads on here about them.

 

Eventually she was offered a deal where they would reduce the cost of the car to help her get the finance needed (big of them !) and she signed an agreement with On Line Finance, which is now under GMAC. The insisted that she had to have the PPI and Warranty deals of the finance would not go through.

 

This finance was paid off in November 2003 with a consolidation loan, which is how we rediscovered the details of the account.

 

Several years later, now knowing about PPI and in possession of the returned SAR on GMAC, we see there was PPI and a warranty, so a FOS questionnaire is being filled in to send to them along with a spreadsheet of what we estimate they owe us.

 

If anyone has any warnings about potential problems in reclaiming I'd appreciate them chipping in here. I have a feeling it will not be as straightforward as we first hoped.

[hillards]

And, they reply to say they didn't sell the policy, it was the dealer... Unless the dealer was registered as a broker as well I don;'t see how that can be, but will now write to Carcraft with the FOS questionnaire...

[hillards]

Been doing some reading: Seems that Carcraft used it's parent company, UK Car Group Limited, for insurance as an 'appointed representative'.

 

What I do not want it for Carcraft to give me the run-around (sorry, that one slipped in) about reclaiming PPI. They can hardly say they did no wrong as the FSA fined them in 2012 for mis-selling. We were pressured into taking PPI and were told there would be no finance without. No warning that they would add the PPI to the loan and we'd pay interest on it either, they just said it was insurance we had to have.

 

I've also noticed a £1,000 'Warranty' on the account, when we got the SAR back. I would never have agreed to a warranty at that cost. We always get our cars serviced and MOT'd at the same garage, personal friends. I'm sure they would have sorted out any issues over and above the standard warranty. Is there anything we can do to get that back too? The original loan was paid off, so they would (should) have given a rebate. Difficult to tell from the paperwork we have so far.

[hillards]

Oh Dear... Carcraft reply to say 'statute barred' and that they conducted the sale on a 'non-advised' basis, but then say that the jurisdiction of the FOS only came into effect relarting to transactions that took place on or after 14 Jan 2005. Which is exactly why we wrote directly to them, and not the FOS.

 

They also increase the font size on their letter for the final paragraph as if to say 'you've been told'

 

Here's a copy of the letter. Comments welcome...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]51653[/ATTACH]

[SabreSheep]

I suspect the Statute of limitations no longer aplies to this, I may be corrected Bearing in mind people have had ppi refunded from the 1990's

[hillards]

I've PM'd Linzi, the Carcraft rep. to pop in and comment. A little disappointing that the letter is from their Drive Happy team, yet they have been so blunt.

[hillards]

oooh, I must have done something wrong. Got a message to say I'd got a PM from CAGbot, but then another to say it could not be delivered as my mailbox was full. I've cleared that, but not had another CAGbot message. Wonder what that was about, my PM-ing the Carcraft rep at a guess...?

[Guest Carcraft Customer Service Manager]

Hi,

 

we can confirm that in 2002, Carcraft was not regulated by the Financial Services Authority (now known as the Financial Conduct Authority). Therefore, the sale and arranging of PPI was done on a non-advised basis. It was not until 14th January 2005 that we became FSA regulated. As such, the Financial Ombudsman Services do not have jurisdiction to assess complaints about PPI policies sold by Carcraft prior to this date. We are sorry we cannot help you any further, but hope you can understand the reasoning behind this.

 

Thanks

Linzi

[hillards]

Thank you Linzi.

 

Well, if FOS are not an option, there's only one left if we are to gain redress. Another £115 in court fees to add to the total...

 

 

EDIT: Plus there's this ongoing problem that when you try and post, you get a warning to say you cannot post another message so soon - and when you look, one's already been posted yet the site is telling you off for trying again...

[hillards]

Thanks to a multitude of things like my illness, cashflow, other cases being dealt with, this one has slipped by but I'm about to do the N1 for court as I've 3 to send in this week that I've finally found time to work on, and should have the cash to pay the court fees with.

 

I suspect the Statute of limitations no longer aplies to this, I may be corrected Bearing in mind people have had ppi refunded from the 1990's

Agreed! But, they refused and suggested it was statute barred. As most CAGgers are aware, PPI claims have not been subjected to the Limitations Act 1980 and as such I do not accept that as an excuse.

 

I am very much aware of their previous 'telling off' by the FSA (http://www.stockmarketwire.com/article/4362458/FSA-fines-car-supermarket-for-PPI-infractions.html) for mis-sold PPI and will mention that in the POC.

 

Question: In applying to the courts system for repayment of the PPI, what rate of interest should I use? Most cases suggest the standard 8% but I have also seen 'interest in restitution' which used the APR the customer had been charged by the lender. Yes, if it were a direct claim or via the FOS I would accept that 8% was the best we could hope for. Personally I'd like to sting the blighter's as much as they did us when we bought the car from them !

 

Is there anything in particular I should be putting in the court claim to support my case ?

[caro]

Hi Hillards. I just wanted to caution taking on 3 claims at once. Obviously it's your choice but bear in mind that if you submit them all at the same time, any work you need to do later on in the process may all need doing at the same time, including 3 hearings close together. Even if you do the work on them now, it may be better to space the claims a bit so you don't get overwhelmed later on.

[hillards]

Hi Hillards. I just wanted to caution taking on 3 claims at once. Obviously it's your choice but bear in mind that if you submit them all at the same time, any work you need to do later on in the process may all need doing at the same time, including 3 hearings close together. Even if you do the work on them now, it may be better to space the claims a bit so you don't get overwhelmed later on.

Appreciate the input Caro, but I'm not working, registered disabled, so don't have much else to do The chances of all three arriving on one day, before I've completed the legwork of the court bundle, does not worry me too much. I've got it all half ready and will have to wait for a defence to be submitted and all that, so plenty of time to work on them between now and then.

 

I very much doubt we'd get three hearings out of the three cases, I fully expect at least one to back down before that stage, probably all three ;-)

[caro]

Fair enough then. I know you're a seasoned cagger so wish you luck and will look out for more of your successes.

[hillards]

Fair enough then. I know you're a seasoned cagger so wish you luck and will look out for more of your successes.

;-) Always hopeful here.

 

It's just this one I'm a bit stuck on, re. the rate of interest to go after. I supposed Id have to stick with 8% to be safe, asking for the higher rate may see the case being chucked out on some technicality, like being greedy

 

Amazing what you find when you start digging into the paperwork after doing an SAR, we started with one loan and discovered we had paid an earlier loan off with that, and both loans had paid off other smaller accounts, which had PPI and/or charges. Quite exciting to realise that, after all this time, we're owed money. I have staggered the claims going to court just through the time it's taken to get replies from some companies, or not as the case may be. I just happen to have a glut of three to do at once through not having the money for court fees until a PPI cheque arrived today

 

As for seasoned, my wife comments on the grey 'salt & pepper' hair often !

[caro]

You can quite justifiably claim the rate of interest that you've been charged I believe. Calculate it on that basis and see what it comes out at. Besides if it came to negotiating a settlement you can always settle for the lower amount (if you feel so inclined)! Congrats on the PPI cheque you've just had.

[hillards]

The amount of PPI paid was £886.17, including the settlement when we paid the loan off.

 

Using a StatIntSheetv101 it works out the 8% at £801.54, giving a total of £1,687.71

If I use the interestcalcs spreadsheet and put 15.66% APR the interest is £3,683.44 and a total of £4,569.61

 

I know which I'd rather have 15.66% is their APR rate from the agreement.

 

I've also seen some cases using 'interest in restitution' at 29.9%, that comes out with interest of £16,104.39, total £16.990.56 - but think that's pushing it.

 

The main reason for wanting to hit them hard is their misguided use of 'statute barred' on the letter they sent. That annoyed me. Had they settled when asked they would have paid a lot less. serves 'em right.

[caro]

I don't see how you can claim more than you were charged so I'd say 15.66%.

[hillards]

I don't see how you can claim more than you were charged so I'd say 15.66%.

Yep, that's what I'm going for. The 29.9% was quoted a few times in other cases where claims for charges were being made and I did consider it but didn't want to risk the case being thrown out if I could not justify that amount.

 

It's a great game though, take 'em to court, let them submit a defence, then wait for them to back down because they know they are not going to win. so why do they mess us about...? Crazy.

[caro]

then wait for them to back down because they know they are not going to win. so why do they mess us about...? Crazy.

 

Probably because most won't get as far as taking them to court, or will settle for less if they don't have the stomach to follow it through.

[hillards]

Probably because most won't get as far as taking them to court, or will settle for less if they don't have the stomach to follow it through.

 

Hopefully then I am showing a lot of fellow CAGgers the way forward. Not afraid of the court system, as already seen in other cases, or the companies I've taken there.

 

With this one I'm certain that PPI is not statute barred and have worked out the value of the claim. If Carcraft wish to dispute the amount claimed they will have to lodge a defence and let the court decide, if THEY have the stomach to follow it through. What I've realised is that they don't want the publicity that would arise from a case being heard in the court and will probably settle ahead of that. Time will tell.

[intend]

Good luck Hillards, following closely as think I may have to go down this route with both Welcome and the Funding Corporation and feel completely out of my depth.

 

Intend

[hillards]

I am thankful that I have a little rule for myself, to go back and re-read anything I've posted here before processing a claim further.

 

I nearly missed something quite important - the unwarranted warranty ! When I wrote to the finance company, then to Carcraft, I was simply reclaiming PPI. Their response, that it was statute barred, was enough for me to commence court proceedings for the PPI. What I must not lose sight of is the warranty issue, which I'll have to do as a separate claim and case - I nearly overlooked it.

 

The warranty would have accounted for approx. 13.1% of the original loan amount, which comes to £741.28 of the payments and settlement we actually paid, plus there was a rebate paid of £776.88 at time of settlement. We would have paid just over £1,500 had it gone to full term. Using a new interestcalcs spreadsheet I've worked out they owe us a further £3,828 if we claimed it at today's date. I'll break this off to a new topic so as not to get it all mixed up with the PPI claim in this one. I've just added the note in case others reading this are in a similar situation and may have missed that too.

[hillards]

Not forgotten this one,. I was advised a while ago not to have too many claims in the court system at one time as it could get hairy if they all defended and court bundles had to be prepared, not to mention potentially attending hearings as well.

 

Just waiting for one case to clear. where judgment has been made, before submitting this one. It's next on the list ;-)

 

As Carcraft have slammed 'statue barred' on this, incorrectly, we may go for the PPI and the warranty in one, as a money claim. It was all added baggage we didn't need, or want.

[intend]

Go for it H

[hillards]

Oh bother, as they say on the telly when they mean something much stronger

 

This one had not yet been started on a court claim as I was advised some time ago to not have more than one case at once active in the court system in case things got messy and I was needed in court for another case, perhaps preventing me from dealing with something urgent on another. So I've had a claim against Halifax PLC running for some time and it's due in court shortly after they've stalled for months.

 

In the meantime, I read on the BBC news website today that Carcraft are now closing down. I take it that means the holding company and everything.

 

Does that mean there's no point in starting a claim in court ? I had every intention of this being the next claim to be started, it's been put off due to the other case still being active, which is an annoyance.

 

This was for PPI, taken out via their own 'UK Car Group Limited' and not a regular insurance company. I had intended following up a successful claim with a further claim for the unwanted warranty they slapped on that we knew little about until we did the SAR many years later.