Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Holding my hands up I was a naughty boy driving a transit van along the A55 in Wales in February and exceeded 60mph in what I thought was a 70mph zone. ( all to do with the weight of the van). When I realised the error of my way I took the fine and sent my licence off by Royal Mail. Yesterday I received a letter from North Wales Police saying that I was now being prosecuted in court for failing to surrender my licence. I paid the fine as soon as I received the £100 penalty letter and carefully read the form ( which is confusing to say the least) and immediately took a walk to the post box and sent my licence off. In hindsight I’m a fool for believing that the licence would get to the HMCS in Loughborough without the need to track and trace the letter. I still believe that Royal Mail hasn’t lost the letter with my licence in it as I have never had any other letter go astray. I believe the licence is with HMCS it’s just not yet been processed probably due to Covid backlog. Seems Covid is to blame for everything these days. How can I avoid this going to court? I’ve never had a speeding ticket in over thirty years of driving or any other ticket hence why I was keen to comply with the ticket and send my licence off as instructed.
    • Rejection letter to be sent to the FOS   I am declining your decision of 13th April for the following reason:   Much of your decision is predicated on your view that Aviva had a “process” in place and that they follow this process and as a result the decision to enter an insurance contract in 2015 was fair. 1.      Nowhere in your decision have you explained what the process was and whether in fact the process was fair. Clearly your view is that regards of the process, all that was needed was for Aviva apparently to follow this process and any outcome would be fair.   2.      On 2 June 2021 I received a telephone call from the Aviva complaint team. During the conversation, they informed me that in fact that in 2015 the call handler had been wrong and had not followed the correct process. The Aviva caller told me that it was not part of the process for the call handler in 2015 to refer her suspicions to her manager. Clearly, if the call handler in 2015 had adhered to the correct process and allowed herself to be guided by her own suspicions then Aviva would not have agreed to provide the insurance cover and they would not have become the victim of fraud. In fact that we find is that the correct process at the very serious suspicions of the call handler were overridden by a manager. It seems evident that either Aviva has misled you as to the nature of the process or else they have not disclosed their process to you. It may even be that they do not have a written “process”. They only have “a way of doing things”. If it is correct that you have not seen the Aviva process but have simply taken their word for it, then it is clear that your investigation and your decision has for the short of any reasonable standards. If on the other hand Aviva has misled you as to the nature of the process, then I think you have a very serious issue with Aviva. I believe that you have ever seen the “process” upon which you are purporting to rely on your decision. You may be interested to know that the man who defrauded Aviva also attempted to use my identity to defraud a number of loan companies. I’m pleased to say that all of them exercise sufficient diligence that they did not become victims of the fraud. Only Aviva failed to exercise proper care and allowed themselves to be defrauded. You may also be interested to know that the police have interviewed me and they have interviewed my brother and they are preparing to charge my brother in respect of his fraudulent activity. I am under no suspicion whatsoever. The police have informed me that they will be speaking with Aviva facing fairly soon. There are many other reasons why I am refusing to accept your decision. All the other reasons turn on the fairness of your decision that the reasons above, go to the heart of your own process and the quality of your investigation. I think it’s not insignificant that I have submitted a Freedom of Information Act request and also a Data Protection Subject Access Request to you and so far you have failed to respond within statutory deadlines. I have also sent Aviva a Subject Access Request and they have extended the deadline for compliance by a full two months for spurious reasons which I do not believe. I have also asked Aviva for sight of their policies and procedures in respect of the rules that they apply to their customers for the setting up of new business and I have received no response. The Aviva website makes a show of being aware of the dangers of domestic financial abuse and they trumpet their association with the organisation Surviving Economic Abuse and they say that their staff are all trained in spotting the signs. I have asked to see their abuse policy and I have received no response. None of this is surprising.    It is clear that Aviva have acted carelessly. They were suspicious but preferred to get the new business. It is Aviva which is the victim of fraud but they prefer to try and avoid their responsibility and pass the buck onto me. I’m pointing out that it is Aviva which is the victim of fraud because I can state categorically now that I have no intention of paying any of the money which Aviva is demanding of me. I notice that Aviva prefers to harass me for an alleged debt rather than simply bring a claim in the County Court where an impartial judge would look at all the evidence including information which so far Aviva has declined to disclose.   This letter is intended to decline to accept your decision but also is intended to be my formal complaint which I wish to be escalated to the Independent Assessor. Please confirm receipt of this complaint, provide me with any policies and guidelines the Independent Assessor route and also let me know the timescales involved.   Yours faithfully
    • The G7 hasn't gone to plan, has it?   Rather than showing the UK off as a potential global leader, Johnson has probably started a trade war with the EU and is being told that other nations don't trust him.
    • Hi   I assume this mattress was the Tenants own property?   So after moving out the Tenants provided an attachment showing a stained mattress and wanting full deposit back and threatening to claim against you for this.   1. Tenants failed to notify you of this stained mattress issue until the end of tenancy after they had vacated the property.   2. You have no evidence that this was the actual mattress used in that property nor evidence to back up there claim the staining caused this mattress damage.  (i.e. one of them could have had an accident and wet the bed or done this when they moved from the property).     3. Ask them that you wish the mattress independently inspected. (which you are fully entitled to do and if it proves this claim is false it will be added to the deposit claim by you the landlord for damages as well as the Garden if you need to get landscapers in to carry out the work that should have been carried out by Tenants as per Tenacy Agreement and raised  by yourself (Landlord) on a few occasions which Tenants failed to rectify even at end of tenancy.   4. Ask them to provide you with the contact details of there Contents Insurance Company (tenants whether Private or Social Housing should always take out and have Contents Insurance but is up to that tenant) bet they don't provide it Big question is the Deposit protected in a Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS) and those Tenants that have left were given a copy of the Prescribed Terms for that TDS? (Bear in mind you may need to tell TDS that you are in dispute with the Tenant about damages i.e. mattress and Garden)    
    • plenty of time to research and calm down. nothing much to do until the end of june.    
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

MPPI questionnaires capital central mortgage


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1777 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 have just started the process of claiming PPI from capital central for a mortgage taken out in 2007.

 

 

I am optimistic as the PPI cost was a up front payment which I wasn't informed of,

also I am registered disabled, which I told the sales associate but he still put my name,

as well as my partners on the agreement.

 

Having received the company's PPI claim questionnaire,

one of the questions is:

Given that the sale was several years ago;

what actually prompted you to complain now?

 

 

Was there a specific event that made you aware you might have cause for company.

 

 

Is there any reason you didn't complain sooner?

 

 

In my mind, I believe this has no relevance to wether or not the PPI was missold

and I am thinking of answering with, this is not relevant to my claim..any thoughts ?

 

I guess I'm worried that they are trying to find a loophole as this is for a large PPI claim.

 

We borrowed a total of £63,622.50 this was £50,000.00 loan and £12,622.00 PPI.

Thank you in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

stuff their Questionnaire

use the FOS one...

 

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi.html

 

 

that way there are no loaded questions.

 

 

have you all the statements?

 

 

if so i'd be doing a spreadsheet too.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?330996-Latest-Spreadsheets-PPI-Claims-and-Charges-Claims-Dec-2011

 

 

statint sheet

 

 

as for working things out

 

 

follow this guide.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?318646-PPI-Single-Premium-Your-questions-answered(1-Viewing)-nbsp

  • Confused 1

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 the reply.

I have a few statements but not all.

 

 

I am following your advise where I can with the fos claim questionnaire.

 

 

I understand after reading through some of the forum how to calculate the interest on each payment of PPI,

 

 

I'm thinking of going through monthly bank statements to get a roughly accurate redress amount.

 

Thanks again for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

might be better to sar capital central or whomever holds the data first.

 

 

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

Ok, dx, took your advice and wrote to, both capital central and loan holders requesting SAR. Posted it today, so am I right in thinking they have 40 days to send it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

sure 40 cal days

 

 

lets see what you get.

 

 

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
  • 1 month later...

Both NEMO and central capital have sent the paper work I asked for in the SAR I sent.

 

After reading through this I still believe I have a case so I pursued this with central capital.

 

I received a letter last week stating that the claim is time barred.

 

I guess my question is

, how can this be,

loan taken out in 2007,

PPI was for five years cover so it ended in 2012.

 

The six year time bar would take this to 2018.

 

My next recourse is now with the ombudsman as central capital have said that this letter is their final correspondence on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can't pull the time Barr chain unless they wrote to you in the last 3yrs telling you there,was PPI to reclaim

 

Just be aware,your theory is wrong

The PPI would have expired on the date the mortgage was settled anyway

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
They can't pull the time Barr chain unless they wrote to you in the last 3yrs telling you there,was PPI to reclaim

 

You're wrong here. We've already discussed this.

 

 

I guess my question is

, how can this be,

loan taken out in 2007,

PPI was for five years cover so it ended in 2012.

 

The six year time bar would take this to 2018.

 

My next recourse is now with the ombudsman as central capital have said that this letter is their final correspondence on this.

 

The time bar rule works as follows: a complaint should be made 6 years from the date of the event complained about or, 3 years after you became aware you had cause to complain.

 

You're complaining about the sale of the PPI. That was 2007, so the 6 years was up in 2013. The 3 year part of the rule may give you some extra time - however, how it is applied depends on each case. For example, if you said that you didn't know you had the policy, but they sent out annual statements, then these could trigger the 3 years.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply. Good to know about them having to inform me about the PPI, they did not and your second point, the mortgage is still active. So it sounds like their just hoping I don't pursue this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're wrong here. We've already discussed this.

 

The time bar rule works as follows: a complaint should be made 6 years from the date of the event complained about or, 3 years after you became aware you had cause to complain.

 

You're complaining about the sale of the PPI. That was 2007, so the 6 years was up in 2013. The 3 year part of the rule may give you some extra time - however, how it is applied depends on each case. For example, if you said that you didn't know you had the policy, but they sent out annual statements, then these could trigger the 3 years.

 

Well that sure does put a spanner in the works, so if the ombudsman deems it time barred, is there any other course of action left for me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that sure does put a spanner in the works, so if the ombudsman deems it time barred, is there any other course of action left for me?

 

So you should see what the ombudsman says first. Firms have mis applied this rule before - so it's worth asking. But you're at least aware it's a potential issue.

 

As for any other courses of action - some will say court. But that means spending money and chances are slim.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

hang on don't paint a picture that that was me agreeing with you

 

 

DISP 2.8.2 was written at a time when 1000's of people were still [looking at the data that these fleecing claim management companies provide]getting back and regaining reclaiming on PPI policies dating back to the 1990's.

 

 

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
hang on don't paint a picture that that was me agreeing with you

 

 

DISP 2.8.2 was written at a time when 1000's of people were still [looking at the data that these fleecing claim management companies provide]getting back and regaining reclaiming on PPI policies dating back to the 1990's.

 

 

dx

 

I don't really understand your point. It was written in the early 2000's. It is still a rule - and it isn't going to change. In fact, quite the opposite, given the FCA's proposal to set a deadline on new complaints.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...