Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm compiling a brief list of points to state in tomorrow's mediation call.  it would seem that I have to come to an agreement of some sort. Seeing as most of the defence, lack of genuine paperwork evidence from the claimant, mild threats etc. seems to go in my favour, is it best to mediate for that agreement or to let it run to court?  Short of the 6 year rule playing out, I'm going to have to pay up somehow, so why don't I just end it tomorrow? By paying I mean, not hurling myself off a cliff.    
    • @ReuTheo Thanks very much. Coincidentally, it has now been exactly over 1 year since I sent my parcel with Evri and began my enquiries with them as to where my parcel is (and eventually coming to this forum / starting this thread). I understand how you are feeling. It's why I kept this thread active and detailed, so anyone who reads it, can clearly understand what was happening at each stage of the process, so they don't feel anxious or overwhelmed with the process through MCOL, mediation, arranging for trial, working through the WS / Court bundle, and finally going in front of a judge. The work has been put in so hopefully you (and everyone else) now has a good WS template to use and build the case. I agree the legal language and specifics are not easy to understand at first glance by layman / non-legal persons. What I found useful is reading the WS and researching some of the Acts in my own time so that I could understand the legal speak. This reading / research really helped me to have a clear idea of what the rules/laws are and how they apply to my case (and likely your case also). As you know, this is a self-help forum so you certainly got to put in the time/work to understand your case/argument. It will be worth it in the end (I say this from personal experience - given this time last year, I was banging my head against a wall with Evri and couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel). Above all else, the team on this forum such as @BankFodder and @jk2054 are a tremendous help with getting the WS in the right state and giving guidance. Don't be afraid to ask questions on this forum - it's for your ultimate benefit (even if sometimes the responses seem harsh - don't take it personally. If my experience is anything to go by, it'll help give clarity and maybe even close a potential gap in your case). Good luck with your case.
    • Savers are pouring money into cash Isas as they look to protect the interest on their nest eggs from tax. They put more than £11bn into cash Isas in April.View the full article
    • The stock ended the trading day at nearly $136, up 3.5%, making it more valuable than Microsoft.View the full article
  • 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

NatWest/RBS due to the mis-selling of PPI on my partners Credit Card addressing missing Statements


mzfrfd
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2657 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 all

 

I have been made an offer by NatWest/RBS due to the mis-selling of PPI on my partners Credit Card. When I say ‘I’ it is because I submitted the claim on her behalf. I have used the FOSRunningPPI v102 Spreadsheet to ascertain what is owed to her. (Fabulous tool). This runs from September 2001 to February 2008 whereupon we have a zero balance.

 

There are statements missing from June 1998 – August 2001, for which I have populated another FOSRunningPPI v102 spreadsheet created using the average spend, and payments as per the FOS approach, and ascertaining the PPI using the 0.76% charge originally used of the balances produced.

 

My conundrum is what figures do I submit to NatWest/RBS to counter their clearly wrong offer?

 

Do we ‘splice’ the spreadsheets in some way or another, or do we keep them separate and add the figures together in some way? Should I start the FOSRunningPPI v102 spreadsheet with the earlier missing data using the averages described above then continue with the real data to produce 1 spreadsheet, or does that distort the figures too much? How do we consider the statutory 8% interest on the assumed data sheet? There is none there at present as there is no positive credit balance. There is however the time lapse between when that money was taken until now to be considered.

 

The earlier statements would definitely have impacted the real figures in some way given that 3 more years of data has been added, however the latter data is real and the earlier data is assumed…

 

The complication for me arises that the Card balance on the assumed data using the FOS agreed averages ends with a balance of £4856.67 owing on the Credit Card. Whereas the real figure at the beginning of the known data shows £712.80. How do I reconcile this without being laughed out of the room by both RBS and FOS if it comes to that? Do I just ‘tailor’ a payment into the splice approach so the total equals the real £712.80?

 

I have seen threads discussing the insertion of maybe 1 or 2 statements but not 3 years’ worth of statements/data at the start of history of the card.

 

How has this been done previously?

 

Any help would be appreciated.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll look later

 

But it might be worthy to use the foscisheet throughout read its description in that link you have

That's the one to use whereby you have statement s missing

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 dx100

 

The CISheet looks like it compounds daily rather than monthly as per FOS approach for running credit cards, and does not make a provision for statutory interest for periods in credit. Probably good as a starting point for addressing charges reclaims and taking a firm to court. However it throws up different compound interest figures than the approved FOS approach as found in - FOSRunningPPi v102 spreadsheet.

 

Thanks for the responses dx100uk. I too will revisit this this evening after work and college.

 

A conundrum indeed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

FOSCISHEET NOT CISHEET...

 

 

sorry caps on my phone

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 had it correct in the first place dx100uk.

 

Its me that looked at the wrong sheet. At first glance it definitely compounds monthly however there still seems to be no provision for for statutory interest for periods in credit, however Im in a mad rush and need to hit the road and go to college! Thanks again for your responses. I'll take a look again later when I finish my class.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok

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 dx100uk

 

The FOSRunningPPi v102 is definately the way to go. The FOSCISHEET has no provision for for statutory interest for the periods in credit which makes it difficult to work out what to request from RBS.

 

With compound interest being the key here and the assumed data the basis of that compounding, i need to find a way to integrate it in a way that has been done before and the funds were successfully claimed. More than happy with the FOS approach but cant find anywhere how they addressed this issue!

 

Any further ideas?

 

Anybody?

Link to post
Share on other sites

you could use the FOSCISHEET

with a running total of the account balance at that time

where credit is shown [it the refuns to that point outweighed the negative balance and for that month showed a credit]

that sum of credit could inputted into the statint sheet at that date [and later ones]

that will do the statint for you.

 

 

2 sheets whereby you have no full statement list is quite ok.

 

 

and ofcoure statint runs till they settle too which the statint sheet does for you...

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

been a long time since I was really working with them now

but it makes a diff with a user that understands my quick musings without 1001 questions..

and how to use the sheets and excel!!

 

 

10/10!!

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

Lol! The FOSRunningPPi v102 is the real daddy though! Hats off to Ims21 for that one. I've got that one working to accommodate the 4 different interest rates that were used over the period my partner had the credit card. Not for me one average rate. Numbers are absolute so there should be no reason for a guessing game! There are some real excel whizzes out there. Where I can understand the formula I just modify them to suit. If you ask me to write formula and code though, I'm stuffed!

 

Thanks again for your input on this. Much appreciated :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok

 

Using the approach below, that FOS say they mandate, this is how I have handled it.

 

What we know

• You took out your credit card in January 2003 and took out the PPI policy at the same time.

What we have assumed

• Credit card interest at the rate charged on normal purchases applied to the PPI premiums added to your account;

• you would have paid the same payments to your account each month as you actually paid; and

• Our records of your credit card account only go back to January 2005. For the period from January 2003 to January 2005 we have assumed that your credit card spending and your payments to your credit card would have been the same as their average from January 2005 to date. We have based our reconstruction of your credit card account for that period on those assumptions.

 

FOSRunningPPi v102 spreadsheet No: 1

 

I took the average spending and payments to the credit card from 21/09/2001 to account closed and populated a FOSRunningPPi v102 spreadsheet with said data to produce the runnings total for the period between June 1998 - August 2001 inclusive. To ascertain the PPI paid on the balances produced I used the 0.76% rate originally charged against the balances which are known, ie from those statements from September 2001 onwards.

 

The spreadsheet for the missing data using the FOS approach above produced a figure of £890.48 including compound interest.

 

FOSRunningPPi v102 spreadsheet No:2

 

For the principle FOSRunningPPi v102 spreadsheet I opened up the run, using the August 2001 statement, by adding the £890.48 as the opening figure for the PPI Premium column. For the opening ‘Monthly Spend’ and ‘Monthly Payment’ figures, I ignored the Card Balance produced at the end of FOSRunningPPi v102 spreadsheet No: 1 and used nominal figures that created a negative card balance to activate the spreadsheet to allow the £890.48 to be picked up. I then added the known data.

 

From 21/09/2001, all the ‘Card Balances’ reflect the true position in terms of spend and payments as can be seen in the statements we have to hand. With the PPI balance brought forward from FOSRunningPPi v102 spreadsheet No: 1, we now see the impact this has on Card Balance Excluding PPI and the simple interest to be paid.

 

Because of the addition of the ‘missing data’ to the spreadsheet, the following Overlimit payments no longer apply and I have added these values to the relevant ‘Statement Date’ row in the PPI premium column, in addition to the PPI premium paid on that date.

 

Transaction Date Description PAYMENTS

20/05/2005 OVERLIMIT FEE £20.00

21/06/2005 OVERLIMIT FEE £20.00

21/07/2005 OVERLIMIT FEE £20.00

19/08/2005 OVERLIMIT FEE £20.00

21/09/2005 OVERLIMIT FEE £20.00

21/10/2005 OVERLIMIT FEE £20.00

21/11/2005 OVERLIMIT FEE £20.00

21/12/2005 OVERLIMIT FEE £20.00

20/01/2006 OVERLIMIT FEE £20.00

21/02/2006 OVERLIMIT FEE £20.00

19/01/2007 OVERLIMIT FEE £12.00

 

What I now have is a FOSRunningPPi v102 spreadsheet Master, ready for submission with supporting data.

 

The banks offer, net of tax, was for £3026.09.

My request, net of tax, is for £6643.29.

 

If anybody can see any flaws in my approach, then please can you advise before I go in to bat!

 

Thanks

FosRunningPPI v102 Master.xls

Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds ok.

if you've followed the fos guidelines

you now wait for them to try and fob you off

as they will so expect that 1st off.

 

 

don't forget the FOS CQ

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

with all ppi claims you should of sent a

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

 

 

but as this is already running bit late now..

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

And yes,

I do indeed expect them to fob me off!

its their default position when their offers are derisory!

 

 

This one will defo go to the Ombudsman as I'll be demanding more than double their offer.

 

 

My maths/numbers are are tight though the approach may be suspect. Hopefully I'll get confirmation on CAG

 

Ah, yes. I have one populated signed and ready to go once i get the expected knock back!

Complaint was sent in November so I still have time on my hands for a bit of too and froing :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't need one now

its not for the FOS

its just provided by the FOS to generally encompass what should be outlined when a PPI complaint is made.

the FOS deadline runs from the final response letter.

 

 

but read that letter properly.

often firms will use the words..you can consider this as our final response..

which means, if you don't its not

we are awaiting your hit back..

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...