Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I disagree with the charge and also the statements sent. Firstly I have not received any correspondence from DVLA especially a statutory notice dated 2/5/2024 or a notice 16/5/2024 voiding my licence if I had I would have responded within this timeframe. The only letter received was the single justice procedure notice dated the 29.5.2024 this was received on 4.6.2024. I also disagree with the statement that tax was dishonoured through invalid indemnity claim. I disagree that the licence be voided I purchased the vehicle in Jan 2024 from RDA car sales Pontefract with agreement to collect the car on the 28.1.2024. The garage taxed the vehicle on the 25.1.24 for eleven payments on direct debit  using my debit card on my behalf. £62.18 was the initial payment on 8.2.24  and £31 per month thereafter the second payment was 1.3.24.This would run from Jan 24 to Dec 24 and a total of £372.75, therefore the car was clearly taxed before  I took the car away After checking one of my vehicle apps  I could see the vehicle was showing as untaxed it later transpired that DVLA had cancelled my tax , without reason and I did not receive any correspondence from DVLA to state why it was cancelled or when. The original payment of £62.18 had gone through and verified by my bank Lloyds so this payment was not declined. I then set up the direct debit again straight away at my local post office branch on 15.2.2024 the first payment was £31 on 1.3.2024 and subsequent payments up to Feb 2025 with a total of £372.75 which was the same total as the original DD that was set up in Jan, Therefore I claimed the £62.18 back from my bank as an indemnity claim as this payment was from the original cancelled tax from DVLA and had been cancelled . I have checked my bank account at Lloyds and every payment since Jan 24  up to date has been taken with none rejected as follows: 8.2.24 - £62.15 1.3.24 - £31.09 2.4.24 - £31.06 1.5.24 - £31.06 3.6.23-£31.06 I have paper copies of the original DD set up conformation plus a breakdown of payments per month , and a paper copy of the second DD setup with breakdown of payments plus a receipt from the post office.I can also provide bank statements showing each payment to DVLA I also ask that my licence be reinstated due to the above  
    • You know hes had it when they call out those willing to say anything even claiming tories have reduced taxes on live tv AS Salmonella says: The Conservative Party must embrace Nigel Farage to “unite the right”, Suella Braverman has urged, following a disastrous few days for Rishi Sunak. The former home secretary told The Times there was “not much difference” between the new Reform UK leader’s policies and those of the Tories, as senior Conservatives start debating the future of the party. hers.   AND Goves replacement gets caught booking in an airbnb to claim he lives locally .. as of yesterday you can rent it yourself in late July - as he'll either be gone or claiming taxpayer funded expenses for a house Alongside pictures of himself entering a house, Mr McGuinness said Surrey Heath residents “rightly expect their MP to be a part of their community”. - So whens farage getting around to renting (and subletting) a clacton beach hut?   Gove’s replacement caught out on constituency house claim as home found on Airbnb WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Social media users quickly pointed out house Ed McGuinness had posted photos in was available to rent     As Douglas Ross says he'll stand down in scotland - if he wins a Westminster seat - such devotion.
    • I've completed a draft copy to defend and will post up here for review.  Looking over the dates and payments this all stemmed from DVLA cancelling in Feb , whereby I set up a new DD in Feb hence the overlap, why they cancelled when I paid originally in Jan I have no idea. Anyway now stuck with pending court action and a suspended licence . I am also firing off a letter to DVLa recorded disputing the licence revoke
    • Thank you both for your expert knowledge and understanding. You're fighting the good fight by standing up for people like me and others with limited knowledge of this stuff. I thank you. I know all my DVLA details are good. I recently (last year) renewed my license, and my car's V5 is current with the correct details; the same is valid for my partner. I'll continue to ignore the love letters 😂 and won't let it bother either me or my partner.  I'll revisit this post if/when I get a letter of claim.  F**k ém.
    • Please check back later on today for a fuller response and some edits
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

reclaiming vintage hfc ppi


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2686 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

well they would its part of the secured loan agreement.

 

its not PPI - its Disability/un-employment so explains the 6%.

 

so £10.77 PCM is correct [£179.58+6%[£10.77]=£190.35

 

one last question

 

did the loan run its full course

in otherwords you paid every payment when you should have

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

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

..

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

  • 1 month later...

they might upto the FOS

did they say anything in their letter

they usually mention compo if they want it paid..

hfc will drag their heels still mind

you watch

 

 

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 Dx…

FOS say they just have to pay the PPI premiums plus the 8% which apparently is the compo…

I thought the interest was owed anyway rather than it being compensation…

 

 

they sold me this PPI 30 years ago so have had my money all that time and I could have invested it or something… pfft!

 

Oh… what about this;

I received a cheque from them yesterday for £100, with a covering letter saying

"Thank you for returning acceptance of our offer & please find enclosed cheque for full and final settlement of your complaint"

 

I think you are right… something quite strange going on here as I definitely haven't accepted anything!! TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

no

you should be getting back the sum stated on the spready £2,825.09

that IS the PPI you paid, plus 8% statutory interest on each payment from the date you made it till the day they settle

[whish IS the interest that put you back into a position had you invested it elsewhere rather than paying the PPI]

 

 

the £100 cheque you have IS extra compo

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

we no

compensation for faffin you around .they aren't now so no gun jumping

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

About a year ago I wrote to them saying I'd had a loan which may have had PPI connected to it

… they wrote back and did the usual thing of saying they couldn't find anything, but to 'please accept this offer of £350'…(I didn't, as they wouldn't provide me with a breakdown of how they decided on that figure).

 

 

This will be my next 'project', once the current claim is decided.

 

 

If you try and do more than one at a time it gets very complicated.

I have at least 3 further possible claims with HSBC

…there are more, I'm sure but I need to find the policy numbers. TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
no

you should be getting back the sum stated on the spready £2,825.09

that IS the PPI you paid, plus 8% statutory interest on each payment from the date you made it till the day they settle

[whish IS the interest that put you back into a position had you invested it elsewhere rather than paying the PPI]

 

 

the £100 cheque you have IS extra compo

 

Finally... FINALLY... they have made an offer! But it's a lot short of what you made it, dx...

 

They have offered; £635.43 Paid PPI and Interest thereon

£1,587.46 8% Compensation on payments made

£2,222.89 Total Redress

Which leaves an amount of £1,905.40 after tax is deducted....

 

Then underneath it states; Premiums paid from 03/12/1986 to 13/10/1991 £635.43

Plus interest at 8% £1,269.97

 

They also say that HSBC Bank plc is, without any further admission of liability and without prejudice, prepared to refund the PPI premiums and associated interest.

 

Without liability?

 

Hmmm.... TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

They told the ombudsman that a screen shot (whatever that is) shows that payments stopped in 1991...

. definitely didn't default on the loan so the only possible scenario is that we paid it off.

How, though, without getting another loan?

 

At least if they were able to provide screen shots back to 1991, that proves they were lying when they told me they don't keep data older than 6 years.

 

I guess the next thing will be a SAR,

as I know for a fact that there were at least 2 separate monthly payments going out to HFC in 1993,

(I found a few old bank statements).

 

I really need this money and an extra few hundred pounds would be a life saver,

but it seems that I have to accept their word that the loan ended two years early, as at the moment, I can't prove that it didn't. TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

but surely you can ask for the proof that proves it did end the screenshot..

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

i would certain be asking the FOS for anything you've not seen before agreement IMHO

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, I've written back to the FO asking for the screen shot.

.. something weird about HFC only having something showing the loan ending early in 1991, but having no other history showing how it was settled...

 

I think it was probably another loan...

 

I have a bank statement here showing loans payments going out to HFC in 1998.

.. so if they have data at 1991, why wouldn't they have data at 1998.

 

The other thing is that the PPI was added to the loan & rolled into one monthly payment..

. so would I have paid interest on the PPI as well?

 

The APR back then was 22.4% and I worked out that the £8k loan, if it went to term, would have cost us almost £16k! TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

int is front loaded

you included that in the calc already.

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

This is what he wrote back... the screen shot isn't very helpful, though...(see below). TB

 

Dear Mrs ---

 

Thank you for your email.

 

If you did find information that shows your loan ran for the full seven year term you could revisit this complaint to seek the remainder of the refund, even if you accept the current offer. This is because there’d be new information, which wasn’t previously available, that changes your complaint .

 

Your loan being replaced by a new loan wouldn’t be a reason to revisit this complaint.

This is because the information you’ve sent about your PPI policy shows that it was paid for by a separate monthly premium. It wasn’t part of the actual loan. So if your loan was replaced by a new one there wouldn’t have been any PPI costs carried over.

 

I’ve attached the screenshots you’ve requested, labelled 1 and 2.

 

Screenshot 1 shows that the business has searched for your loan using the loan account number.

 

Screenshot 2 shows the results of the search. The column “ACCNUM” shows the account number – 27600656. The column “MIGRTD” shows whether or not the loan account was migrated (moved over) from the old computer system to the new computer system, which happened in October 1991. In this case the results show “N”, indicating the account wasn’t migrated. The reason the accounts weren’t migrated from the old system to the new system is because they were closed at the time. The column “DATE8” shows the date the account was opened – 1986-11-03.

 

I hope this answers your queries, but if there is anything else about your case that you’d like to discuss please let me know.

 

This email was sent from Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. Registered Number: 3725015. Registered Office: Exchange Tower, London, E14 9SR, United Kingdom.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There wasn't a separate PPI insurance policy..

.we didn't have two amounts going out each month..

. there was only one policy number and we made a single payment each month to include the loan AND the PPI,

so we wouldn't have been able to stop paying the PPI element even if we wanted to.

 

So very confused now... I think the FO has made a mistake...TB

Your loan being replaced by a new loan wouldn’t be a reason to revisit this complaint.

 

This is because the information you’ve sent about your PPIlink3.gif policy

shows that it was paid for by a separate monthly premium.

It wasn’t part of the actual loan.

 

So if your loan was replaced by a new one there wouldn’t have been any PPI costs carried over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well prove to them

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 prove to them

 

I thought I already had...

by sending them both the Loan Agreement

and the *Insurance Policy

(*Hamilton was associated to HFC, so it's an 'in house" insurance policy).

 

Both the loan agreement and the insurance policy have the same agreement/policy number and it quite clearly states on the insurance policy that the £10.77 will be added to the £179.58 making a single monthly payment of £190.35...

 

Does that mean we were paying interest of 22.4% on the insurance cover, the same as on the loan? TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes

 

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...