YES CAR/DAFS .. You will pay PPI - Underwriters were Uk Insurance now Churchill

[Wolvesboys]

Please could you help

 

i have been pursuing a claim for mis sold PPI against YES car credit/DAFS for a number of years,

 

i bought the car in 2001,

I'm not covered by either FOS or associated bodies.

I have got to the stage whereby i have advised them i will be continuing my fight through the courts,

 

on Saturday i received letter From Irwin Mitchell stating amonghts other things.

I quote

" It is our clients primary contention that any claim brought in respect of the agreement will fail as it will have been brought outside the statutory time limits for starting court proceedings.

 

The agreement was entered into by you on 20th November 2001,

almost 16 years ago,

and therefore,

according to the limitation periods set out in the Limitation act 1980,

any claim arising out of this agreement is now out of time.

 

There is other gumpth with, that I'm not to concerned about and this will be their scaremongering in an attempt to put me off.

 

Would just like to understand a bit more about Limitation act 1980,

I've had a look through, to which it states "6 years",

however my complaint is not against the Loan per say,

it focussed around the mis selling of PPI.

 

I would be grateful if you could give me a direction i can take with this,

as do not want the bastards to get away with it any longer.

 

Once I'm successful, would be more than happy to share my finding on your site, as I'm aware I'm one of thousands in the the same boat with DAFS crooks.

 

I believe they scan your site looking for such information in getting themselves ahead against claimants like myself.

[Guest Mrs Hobbit]

I read the Act as you have six years from the 'date of discovery' of the mis-sold PPI.

 

I would tell Irwin Mitchell to re-read the Act ,and draw their attention the DATE of DISCOVERY OF MIS_SOLD PPI, not the date of the loan. They are trying to scare you off.

[BankFodder]

I'm afraid that you are being misled here.

 

The issue of PPI is about money being paid under a mistake. The mistake being either that you believed that you were required to purchase the PPI, or that you were purchasing it without being informed, or that you were purchasing it believing that it was relevant to you when in fact it was not applicable, or that you weren't informed that a commission payment was being paid and so therefore you weren't fully informed and not in a position to make a proper decision as to whether or not it was suitable for you or if it was the best deal.

 

The limitation period which applies to actions for the recovery of money paid under a mistake is six years – but this means six years from the date that you knew of the mis-selling or could reasonably have done so.

 

It is up to you to decide when you knew about the mis-selling or when you should reasonably have known about it and then you start counting the six years from there.

 

The information which you are receiving from Irwin Mitchell is basically the pure contractual limitation period – but even that, is wrong because it is not six years from the date of the contract. It is six years from the date of the contractual breach – or the date upon which you could reasonably have known of the breach.

 

I'm afraid that we have lots of instances of solicitors or legal representatives providing this kind of incomplete information and in this way they are effectively misrepresenting the true situation – particularly to litigants in person – and I can imagine that you're not the only person who has received this kind of information in respect of a loan from Yes Car Credit.

 

Presumably these people are now covered by the FOS and so I would write back and inform them that their information is misleading because it is incomplete and is calculated to deceive a litigant in person and because of that you are proposing to make an immediate formal complaint to the FOS simply in respect of this unfair treatment of you.

 

Tell them that additionally, you are fully aware that you are well within the time. Because you only became aware of the PPI mis-selling within the last X years and therefore you will be starting a legal action if they're not prepared to change their position.

 

If you're not prepared to make the complaint which I have outlined above to the FOS, then don't make the threat to do so. However, a complaint about this to the FOS is a simple matter. It is free of charge. And it will help others if you do so.

 

Incidentally, you are talking about PPI going back an awful long time here. Have you any idea of the value of a possible claim? Although you are highly likely to win, there is a niggling thought in my mind that the value of your claim will put you onto the fast track which would mean that you could be at risk of costs if you lost the action.

[Wolvesboys]

Thank you

 

Great information and the reassurances i was looking for.

Im a man of action not threats, so yes will be complaint to the FOS about the solicitors response.

Its in the region of 3500-3900 i have calculated, so fingers crossed.

[Wolvesboys]

Thank you Mrs Hobbit

 

Im in the process of constructing my response to them now, your help has been invaluable.

 

Thank you again, will keep you all updated.

[BankFodder]

Well that is well within the small claims limit and so that gives you a big advantage immediately because they will know that you have nothing to be frightened about in terms of bringing the legal action.

 

However, have you really calculated it correctly because if you're talking about PPI which was sold to you 16 years ago, I would have expected it to be an awful lot more – and of course don't forget the 8% interest.

 

I suggest that you begin a complaint to the FOS immediately but in terms of a legal action, I suggest that you start making your calculations very carefully.

 

Also of course, give Irwin Mitchell an opportunity to reconsider their position in view of this approach that you are deciding to take. It will be better all round if they simply face up to their obligation.

[Wolvesboys]

I utilised a spreadsheet for PPI reclaiming, just imputted the info i had to hand and that was the outcome.

 

As you state positively it falls within MCOL stipulations, which i believe is £5000

[dx100uk]

go after the insurance underwriters.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?381105-Yes-Car-Credit-Direct-Auto-Finance-PPI-REclaim&highlight=ukdarren

[BankFodder]

Small claims limit is £10k

[Wolvesboys]

Thank you.

Does anybody have a PPI claiming spreadsheet i could utilise please

[dx100uk]

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

[Wolvesboys]

Thank you.

 

Will have a play and see if i can utilise them. Thanks for all your help and i will keep you informed of updates.

[dx100uk]

statint sheet

 

 

just read that ukdarren thread

its all there

go after the underwriters

[Wolvesboys]

Ive read that, all 18 pages and she pursued DAFS through the courts, couldn't see any mention of going after the underwriters.

I have previously, it was declined and FOS were pretty poor in any support given, basically agreed with them.

[dx100uk]

oh must be my brain playing tricks...sorry.

 

yes PPI can be statute barred sadly people need to read the FCA CCL guidelines...

 

but what surprises me is they haven't pulled the 'well we weren't regulated then anyway string ' as they wernt and just say sod off.

 

well you've got all the data

so who were the insurance co?

[cjcregg]

Thank you

 

Great information and the reassurances i was looking for.

Im a man of action not threats, so yes will be complaint to the FOS about the solicitors response.

Its in the region of 3500-3900 i have calculated, so fingers crossed.

 

Solicitors don't fall within the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service I'm afraid.

[Wolvesboys]

Who would i complain to about his actions in place of FOS please?

 

They have attempted that strategy, supported by FOS and FCA, unfortunately, hence why i have decided the MCOL route. Email was sent today, sit back and await the reply.

[cjcregg]

Nobody really. The Legal Ombudsman only deals with complaints about your own solicitor and the Solicitor's Regulation Authority only accepts reports about conduct issues, which this isn't. To be honest I can't see you have cause to complain as they seem to be simply stating what grounds they would rely on to defend, the merits of which could only be decided by a court.

 

I would also be wary of issuing a PPI claim that would be defended on statute barred grounds. It's been tried before and failed.

[Wolvesboys]

Hi, thank you for your input.

Are there any case studies/reference to the failed attempt against PPI for statue barred you could point me to please?

[cjcregg]

Here you are http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a3dd684e-bb83-452e-bb27-52899ec1035e

[Wolvesboys]

I have re attempted the underwriter recently, however they have come back say " The product/Policy referred to in your correspondence was sold by a company which is not part of the royal bank of scotland group"

 

Any advice?

[dx100uk]

what lead you to HBOS?

 

this is where a recent claim was sent too

though I believe provident now own them?

 

Direct Auto Financial Services

2nd Floor

Afon Building

Worthing Road

Horsham

RH12 1TL

[Wolvesboys]

Underwriters were Uk Insurance who are associated with Churchill who are associated with Direct line who are associated with RBOS.

 

DAFS are the company who purchased Yes car credit ( yes owned by Provident), i have emailed the CEO of provident, hence the letter from Irwin.

[Woody08]

Is Irwin their Acting Solicitor?

[dx100uk]

says so in post 1