Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
  • 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

Halifax PPI and Package Account Fees reclaiming for dad **WON BOTH**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3325 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

I'd have to check but I think [without going down the court route] the business is only obliged to settle the premiums + contractual interest applied during the term + 8% from settlement date

 

On premiums [incl term interest] of £1162.36 at 2109 days it comes in at just shy of £1700.00

 

The effect of rollover also appears to have been duplicated within your spreadsheet, the calculation should only include the effect of any remaining premium refinanced less any contractual rebate at draw down of second loan/settlement of first...... I'm assuming only a proportion of the insurance premium rolled over

 

For example; if the first loan had a premium of £500.00 incl term frontloaded interest over 50 months and you paid £10.00 per month over 20 months, the remaining premium over the term would be £300.00. If you decided to roll this up into a 2nd loan at month 21 and prior to its natural end date you may have received an early settlement rebate of say £200.00 , leaving £100.00 rolled over to the 2nd loan or 10% of your original premiums incl interest for the new loan term. The calculation then becomes a little convoluted as the £100.00 would include the initial loan interest + the addition of 2nd loan contractual interest.

 

Might be worth you asking ims or dx to take a look at your calculations and see if they can spot anything obvious that may point toward the discrepancy between your figures and the business

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 204
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

we already did

there appears to be no PPI rebate of loan 1 before its refinance by loan 2.

 

 

the calcs are all here to see already mike

 

 

regards

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

Cheers dx

 

To be honest, I'm struggling with the latest spreadsheet.

 

 

My understanding of Fos calc methods would be to draw a line under the first loan

and roll any outstanding premium balance [rebated or otherwise] into the 2nd loan and add the effect of the 2nd term interest.

 

 

In that respect the spreddy doesn't make sense as the premiums continue at a fairly consistent rate throughout the 2 loans.

 

 

The only logical way that could occur is if the premium ran separate from the loan which it was attached to....

........ hope that makes sense,

 

 

have a look at the spreadsheet and see if you can understand where I'm coming from.

 

 

I'm not saying the calcs are fundamentally wrong, just possibly slightly acock in respect of this claim

 

It appears to be calculating at circa 90% of the 1st loan premium rolled into the 2nd loan from month 24 onward

Link to post
Share on other sites

post 124 explains

 

 

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

Thanks for clearing that up Mike,

 

So should I just use the letter I was going to use? or just ask for a breakdown?

 

Letter:

 

Dear (Guy who signed the letter)

 

We are in receipt of your letter dated 23/02/2015 concerning are PPIlink3.gif loan claims. After assessing your outcome, we believe you have overlooked a few key areas in are claim.

 

We agree that we are clearly entitled to redress, but we reject your calculation formula, as there is no evidence that a policy would either have been required or purchased no matter the cost.

 

We request you to state your reasons and/or evidence your decision relies upon. We also accept your payment paid to our bank account as a partial settlement.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

Thanks

Andrew

We live in a world where seeing is not believing, where only a few know what really happened.

NatWest Problem *****Refunded*****

Link to post
Share on other sites

spelling and grammar is very poor.

 

 

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

post 169

 

 

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi all again,

 

Got a letter today from Halifax. I'll upload it for everyone to see but it's just saying we don't think we got it wrong and go to the FOS. There brakedown is confusing to say the least, but tells me they took tax of it!

 

Surly it would be up to my mum & dad if they will pay tax on such a small amount, not the bank.

 

Would like to know if I should go to the FOS or just put this case to bed.

 

Thanks

Andrew

We live in a world where seeing is not believing, where only a few know what really happened.

NatWest Problem *****Refunded*****

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it already refunded based on its calculations? If it has you've nothing to lose by filing the matter with the FOS, you could keep pursuing directly with the bank but to be frank it won't want to redress any more than it can get away with so you could end up flogging that dead horse for months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,

 

Yes they refunded the money not long after they sent the letter. I'll use the FOS, not going to invite letter tennis for the next few months.

 

I've filled out most of the complaint form, how would I describe the problem in the about your complaint section? And do I just refer to what I asked for in the letter for how I want things put right?

 

Thanks

Andrew

We live in a world where seeing is not believing, where only a few know what really happened.

NatWest Problem *****Refunded*****

Link to post
Share on other sites

You only really need to say that you don't agree with the formulae it used to calculate redress as you believe it fails to address the effect of rolling over the originating loan balance. Try to keep it fairly straightforward, if you believe the redress was undervalued then yep, that's what you're asking to be put right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

opps think they might be right

 

 

this doc shows it was cancelled

 

 

on inception of loan 2

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 all again,

 

Thought I would make a new thread for this loan so not to confuse my other PPI thread for my dad.

 

I'll be using this for the covering letter:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

We are writing in relation to payment protection insurance (PPI) policy, associated with the above account, which we do not believe was sold to us correctly or fairly.

 

We believe you have not treated us fairly for the following reasons:

 

· The overall cost, this being associated interest, was not explained, nor mentioned at all

 

· We were not told how to go about cancelling our policy

 

· We already had cover in place that could have protected our repayments but wasn’t asked about this

 

Unless you can provide proof that the policy was appropriate for our circumstances and that we were treated fairly when you sold us the insurance, we will expect a full refund of all premiums, the interest that we have incurred as a result of having the PPI cover and 8% simple interest until settled.

 

We have attached a PPI questionnaire for the loan, evidence of PPI policy and a PPI redress calculation that’s under the Financial Ombudsman Service rules.

 

Under the FCA guidelines, Halifax has 8 weeks to resolve our complaint. We trust that you will deal with our case within this period. If not, we will refer the matter to the Financial Services Ombudsman.

 

We look forward to your prompt response to this letter.

 

I haven't found the credit agreement yet but will be looking through my dads paperwork tomorrow.

 

Halifax didn't include anything for the 2009 loan in the SAR we sent them.

 

Should I request Halifax to send a copy or should I send a CCA request for it?

 

I've found a loan offer that said the loan was for £6,467 with a additional borrowing fee of £99 and a £50 deeds despatch fee

 

The monthly cost was £121.07

 

So I calculated 121.07/5715 x 100 =2.11%

 

So am I right in saying the monthly repayments is 2.11% of £121.07 which is £2.55?

 

Thanks

Andrew

We live in a world where seeing is not believing, where only a few know what really happened.

NatWest Problem *****Refunded*****

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the attachment dx posted it seems the redress is correct, or at least within a few quid of what should have been your expectation based on a separately running PPI premium. Entirely up to you if you want the ombudsman to check the figures, given that there is no requirement for you to comply with its findings if it comes up short of the offer already banked the only loss to you would be your time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so the PPI was 121.07 PCM?

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

well then that calc is wrong then!

 

 

its the PPI divided by the total cost of the loan is it not to get the PPIPCM% figure

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

you have the correct calc

you've just used the wrong figure

 

 

as said above

and in link 1 below

 

 

total cost of PPI / total cost of loan * 100 = PPI%

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

How do I workout total cost of PPI?

 

All i've got at the min is the offer for the loan. I'll upload it so you can see.

 

Only thing I can think of that would be the total cost of PPI would be the £487 added on the the loan amount.

 

Thanks

Andrew

We live in a world where seeing is not believing, where only a few know what really happened.

NatWest Problem *****Refunded*****

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...