Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • the debt is statute barred. no to mediation.  
    • Just to clarify the position regarding the question as to whether a bailiff is legally permitted to seize a vehicle that is far in excess of the amount of debt requested.   In this case, the council tax debt at the time of the Notice of Enforcement was £500. Unfortunately, instead of contacting the company to enter into a payment arrangement,  the matter was left and had resulted in a bailiff making a personal visit and the debt has now increased to around £750. From your initial post, your car could be worth approx £5,000.    Vehicles are of course a preferred asset to seize. However, the legal position is that if the bailiff is able to gain 'peaceful entry' into your home and by doing so, is able to seize sufficient goods to clear the debt and bailiff fees, then he should not touch the car. If however, he is unable to gain entry....OR....there are not sufficient goods in the property to cover the debt.....then he is legally permitted to remove (and sell the vehicle).    You need to be aware that a £5,000 car would likely raise significantly less than this when sold. Enforcement agents sales are generally auction sales (usually online). Because it would not be likely that the vehicle is sold with a V5C (Log Book) or service history, this would affect its sales price. From any sale, the enforcement company would need to deduct approx 14 days of storage fees (this could be up to £40 PER DAY). Auctioneers fees would also be deducted.         
    • Yes the next step I think is a letter of claim. If you are not familiar with them already then please read up on this forum the steps involve taking a small claim in the County Court. It's not difficult but it's worth knowing the steps in advance so that you will be confident. Draft a particulars of claim and post it here. Keep it short and sweet
    • Hi. Many thanks for your continued help. I will follow the advice and not get involved with phone calls, email only. The house was repossessed by the mortgage company Southern Pacific not Central Trust, but they did try some years earlier. They seemed to be taking it in turns at one point. I don't remember saying the debt had been sold to them or anyone else, as far as I am aware the house covered the mortgage, I have never heard from them. I just don't understand the figures or the terminology they used to explain the costs, find it baffling and far from clear.
    • Merged witness and draft defence, deleting some paragraphs.. still too long?   1. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on 10 November 2021. However, the claim had not been served at my current address. Therefore, I was not aware of the County Court Judgment until I received a notification that it had been entered on my credit report. 2. On learning of the County Court Judgement on 15 November 2021, I immediately contacted County Court Business Centre to find out details of the Default Judgment. It was only at this point that I discovered that Capquest Investments Limited was the Claimant and that the judgment was regarding monies owed on an alleged credit agreement. On 17 November I received a copy of the judgment from the County Court Business Centre by Email. 3. I now know that the judgment was served at an old address (xxx). However, I moved to a new address on 8 January 2021 with my tenancy at the old address ending 5 February 2021. In support of this I can provide confirmation of two (2) Council Tax bills for my current address (xx) and previous address. See [EVIDENCE A and B] 4. On 12 September 2018, the Claimant wrote to the Defendant clearly stating that following a request from the Defendant for a copy of the signed Consumer Credit Agreement with the original creditor, that one did not exist. I had no reason to believe this situation has changed to date and, the Claimant having already written to my new address reporting of default sums notice under the the Consumer Credit Act 1974 did, purposefully, use an old address to gain a Default Judgement. See [EVIDENCE C] 5. I suggest the Claimant did not make reasonable enquiries as to my current address before pursuing the court order especially considering they had good reason to believe they did not hold my current contact details. As stated in the Civil Procedure Rules CPR 6.9(3) where a Claimant has reason to believe that the address of the Defendant referred is an address at which the Defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the Claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the Defendant’s current residence or place of business. At the time of the County Court Judgment, my credit file showed my current address so I was there to be found by a simple trace. See [EVIDENCE D]. 6. The Claimant sent a letter dated 27 October 2021 to my current address which I received on 9 November 2021. This equates to only twelve (12) working days between the Claimant filing the claim and producing this letter. I must question why the Claimant would use two different addresses in such a short space of time if there was any doubt I no longer resided at the address they had on record. See [EVIDENCE E]. 7. On the basis provided above I would suggest that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty to use the Defendant’s current address when bringing the claim. 8. Considering the above, I as the Defendant was unable to defend this claim properly. I thus believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside. 9. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 10. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have had an agreement in the past with Shop Direct Finance Company Limited but I do not recognise the account number referred to by the Claimant.  11. Paragraph 2 is noted but not admitted. The Claimant would not be aware of any alleged breach or in a position to plead such fact as an assignee as the Defendant did not enter into any agreement with the Claimant and is therefore put to strict proof to verify the alleged statement of its particulars. 12. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Santander and PPI on a Principles store card


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2037 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

Hi! I've just received a rejection letter from Santander, apropos a Principles store card dating back to the 1990s. I'm adamant the PPI attatched to this was mis-sold on a number of levels and have every intention of pursuing this – as far as court should it prove necessary.

 

In the meantime, with it being some time since I've made any PPI claims I'm a little bit out of the loop and would appreciate any more information on where, exactly, we're at with regard to the Financial Conduct Authority's investigation into undisclosed commissions.

 

Currently, we are unable to consider this aspect of the matter until the FCA has set out its position on undisclosed commissions. We anticipate that this will be in or after April 2016, when we will revisit your complaint and provide a final response when the guidance has been published.

 

I've done a good bit of Googling but can't find anything to suggest the FCA is set to reveal its position any time soon and, this being the case, hoped a fellow CAGer might be able to shed some more light on this - in particular, how the FCA's decision might potentially advantage my claim and when we might expect some kind of announcement from the FCA.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an FCA statement on the issue, which gives some background: https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statement-on-payment-protection-insurance-ppi (scroll down to the section titled "Plevin")

 

The FCA consultation has concluded. It is now a matter of the FCA digesting the responses and working out where to go from there. It could be quite a while - though no firm time frame has been set.

 

I wouldn't say that this necessarily gives an advantage to any PPI mis-selling complaint. The FCA has proposed that where a complaint is affected by the unfair commission issue, then the consumer should be refunded the difference between a fair level of commission and the commission they actually paid. It will not be a refund of all the premiums - which is what would happen had there been a failure during the sale of the policy.

Warning: Freemen of the Land Operate here. Think twice before accepting 'legal advice'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input mightymouse_69. What you've said and your link pretty much confirm what I'd already deduced, though I do now have a few supplementary thoughts and questions.

 

[1] Your link suggests the Plevin judgement relied on Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which was inserted by the Consumer Credit Act 2006. Given my PPI policy dates from the 1990s, it seems unlikely this legislation applies to my policy, unless, that is, there's any scope for it to be applied retrospectively. Any thoughts anyone might have on this would be very welcome.

 

[2] Notwithstanding my concerns above, as you point out even where a compliant is affected by the unfair commission issue, this will not trigger a refund of all premiums but, rather, the difference between a fair level of commission and the commission actually paid. Given I'm adamant my policy was mis-sold, for a multitude of reasons, as you suggest, this is not overly helpful to me.

 

At the same time, Santander's correspondence makes it very clear the sale of the policy involved an undisclosed commission and, it seems to me, this could be helpful –*Santander maintain the sale was non-advised, yet concede the shop assistant who sold it may have received a commission for doing so. In light of this and the well-documented concerns about the sale of PPI policies by agents of GE Capital at this time, it seems to me there's a very strong case to be made that my recollection of events – in essence, that it was recommended I should sign up for this policy [by someone who would be rewarded should I do so] – is likely to be more reliable than that of a Santander complaint handler who, plainly, was not there at the time.

 

Again, I'd be interested to her whether my fellow CAGers think there's any merit in this line of attack.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fred_Funk,

 

I expect that one of the experts will respond to you soon but thought I'd put my thoughts out there.

Santander's rejection is probably just their inital fob off and hope you will go way.

As you are sure that it was missold, I think you should respond by countering their reasons for rejecting.

I feel that this is the line that you need to concentrate on.

It may help if you list here, the reasons why it was missold and their reasons for rejecting. This would help the experts and give them a better understanding of the situation.

Sometimes it's better to concentrate on one or two reasons for mis-selling rather than all of them.

I've been involved with a couple of long battles and the one thing I've learnt is not to give in and keep on fighting.

 

Jedicris

REMEMBER! Hunger is the enemy - NOT the hungry!

Link to post
Share on other sites

[1] Your link suggests the Plevin judgement relied on Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which was inserted by the Consumer Credit Act 2006. Given my PPI policy dates from the 1990s, it seems unlikely this legislation applies to my policy, unless, that is, there's any scope for it to be applied retrospectively. Any thoughts anyone might have on this would be very welcome.

 

[2]At the same time, Santander's correspondence makes it very clear the sale of the policy involved an undisclosed commission and, it seems to me, this could be helpful –*Santander maintain the sale was non-advised, yet concede the shop assistant who sold it may have received a commission for doing so. In light of this and the well-documented concerns about the sale of PPI policies by agents of GE Capital at this time, it seems to me there's a very strong case to be made that my recollection of events – in essence, that it was recommended I should sign up for this policy [by someone who would be rewarded should I do so] – is likely to be more reliable than that of a Santander complaint handler who, plainly, was not there at the time.

 

1) Section 140A is applied retrospectively in some cases. If your credit agreement was entered into before April 2007, which is when S140A kicked in, the unfair relationship issues would only be relevant if the agreement was still in place in April 2008 - which is when the legislation began to apply regardless of when the agreement was entered into.

 

2) The sale of your policy was probably not an advised sale by the FCA definition. A advised sale would be one where the advisor asks certain questions about your circumstances before recommending a certain policy. Advisors would need to be qualified to do this, since they are giving financial advice. A sale being categorised as "advised" results in a slightly higher bar being set for the business. Where the sale is non advised, they just have to show that information about the policy was given to let you make your own mind up. Where as in an advised sale, they have to show that clear information was given, but also that they then recommended a policy which was suitable for you given your circumstances.

 

The sales advisor saying things like "this policy will be good if you end up out of work" or other sales patter wouldn't be enough for the sale to be considered a recommended sale.

 

I don't think the unfair relationships issue necessarily adds any more weight to your argument. It has been known since the beginning that some staff received a reward for selling PPI. In fact, some businesses made more from the PPI than they did the product they sold it alongside.

Warning: Freemen of the Land Operate here. Think twice before accepting 'legal advice'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...