Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • look at the pix on the NTK that show his car going in/out look at the drain covers .   now look at the picture in the PDF. same car park.     purley way carpark.pdf
    • https://completelyretail.co.uk/scheme/2418                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  I do think he is right about the car park.   This is the Purley Way Retail Park and the photos of the vehicle were taken in the other park.                           
    • That WS is appalling.   I got lost with all the "I", "he", there is only one person being sued.   You, personally, have been great at supporting your dad's mate, but as the mate is presumably retired I don't understand why he/she hasn't used the time to look up WSs that were successful on the forum.    
    • worthy to note on google earth that is the purley way carpark in their NTK pictures and if thats his car , the defence and that WS is not going to work.   he is looking at the WRONG carpark, in his statement, the caravan one with the bailff notice is not purley way !!
    • Having received a claim for a parking infringement in February 2020 my friend went to discover where the Purley Way Retail Park was.   He told me what the 6 shops within this complex were and I then knew that I had never been inside these shops or the car park that is situated in front of these stores.  Apparently, he had also spoken to a member of staff within one of the shops who confirmed that there was no time limit for parking in this car park.   I then replied to this with a defence claim stating the following.    "I have just received notification of a parking infringement which occurred 25/5/19." "Obviously, I can't remember where I was on that day but I have now visited the Purley Way Retail Park where the offence is alleged to have occurred and I can confirm that I have never shopped in any of these six shops in that retail park. also there doesn't appear to be any parking restrictions apart from caravans"     Perhaps I should have said that I had not parked there on that day in question 25/5/19 but that is what I meant.   I received a reply to this defence claim dated 5/3/20 rejecting my defence.   Mr then said he would help me in this matter and he returned to Purley Way Retail Park and took photographs of the entrance and the signs available at the entrance. He then emailed them to BW on the 20/4/20 as shown above after a phone conversation with them.   As requested, the 3 photos (numbered 1,2 and 3) of Purley Way Retail Park. The drive-in entrance is the only way into the units and although the 2 car parks either side of this unit only allow parking up to 3 hours, this car park has no parking restrictions which was confirmed to me by a member of staff about 2 months ago.   I suppose it's possible that a year ago parking restrictions were different and if so, can you please let me know when they changed. He received confirmation that they had been passed on to their client and would get back with a reply.   As he had not had a reply, he phoned on two more occasions but no reply had been received from TPS. Eventually he phoned on the 3/8/20 to be told that they now had a reply, after over 100 days and they would forward it on. On receiving that email, he immediately knew they were not photos of the Purley Way Retail Park (photo 4) as it was a much larger car park and he told that to BW.    On the following day further photographs were sent of my vehicle in the same car park as the previous days offering which is not the Purley Way Retail Park.   He was not completely sure what the car park was but on his return to this county he discovered they were photographs taken in the Lombard Retail Park (photo 5) which is situated over 3/4 mile (1.2km) from the Purley Way Retail Park. I have also enclosed photos of the same car park (numbered 6 and 7) in which you can clearly see the Matalan store and also the Range which replaced Homebase when it shut down.   Bearing in mind that you have shown a photo of my vehicle in this car park it could not be in the Purley Way Retail Park at the same time and I confirm it was not ever left in the Purley Way Retail Park.   I believe that the facts stated in this statement are true.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Mediator point - Hermes lost my parcel and it is offering just a partial refund of the total amount requested. What's next?. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/434633-mediator-point-hermes-lost-my-parcel-and-it-is-offering-just-a-partial-refund-of-the-total-amount-requested-whats-next/&do=findComment&comment=5109422
      • 13 replies
    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 33 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

RBS - PPi and life insurance on same claim?


Recommended Posts

Correct, a loan and mortgage PPi from before this 2003 product have been refunded

 

Yes, it is active with Aviva after RBS transferred it to them

 

It almost looks like this life assurance department didnt get all of the information from the 2019 claim I made, where I stated I was advised it was compulsory to have PPi and also this decreasing term insurance/assurance thing.

 

In this case i'll draft a response stating these bits and ask to you give it the once over

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I wrote to you on xxx august 2019 wanting to reclaim the numerous compulsory protection policies you made me takeout in year concerning  my mortgage agreement number xxx dated xxx.   yo

wasting money by using recorded is not needed on most letters 

I have no experience of PPI claims myself but I do know that PPI and decreasing term assurance aren't the same thing.   I may have asked this before, but why do you think you were missold th

short and curt...

 

dx

  • Like 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

It seems not all the information from my initial PPi and associated insurances claim made in 2019 has been transferred over to you.

 

I stated I was mis-sold the decreasing term life assurance, as at the time of purchase I was informed this was compulsory for my situation and type of mortgage

 

I only learned this was not true in 2019, along with the loan and mortgage PPi’s. This is within the six year limit you mention and would explain why RBS recently acknowledged the other two PPi’s were indeed mis-sold also and have since been refunded.

 

This life assurance was transferred to Aviva in 2011 and is currently being paid monthly, whilst this is resolved. If I had known it was not compulsory, somewhere along the line I would have cancelled it.

 

The statement I made that I do not have an endowment mortgage, so there ‘was’ no legal requirement to have nor ‘should’ the bank have made this plan compulsory, was from information I learned in 2019. Also that the only beneficiary was the bank through ultimate direct payment should something have happened to me, settling the mortgage sum.

 

To be absolutely clear, the concerns I have raised were not known to me at the time of purchase and I was not aware that I had cause for complaint at that time.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/02/2021 at 14:44, NGEddie said:

When looking into complaints, I am guided by the rules from our Regulators, the Financial Conduct Authority. These rules are known as the Dispute Resolution rules, or DISP rules. These rules place a responsibility on customers to raise any complaint or concerns within a reasonable period of time; a complaint should be raised within six years of when the advice was provided or, if later, within three years from when a customer first became aware (or should have reasonably become aware) that they had cause to complain.

 

if the above were true and is the stance of your bank, bearing in mind ALL other policies, including this xxxx policy, which is our mutual  concern today and were all on the same initial original complaint letter,  why have they all been accepted as mis sold and have already been refunded ? Why suddenly is this time policy only relevant to this part of my complain?

  • Like 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

I thank you for your letter dated xxxx, it's contents are duly noted.

 

then as above

  • Like 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

saves postage

 

  • Like 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
  • 2 weeks later...

Have a reply! I sent exactly as you said and...

 

In relation to your comments regarding your claim about your other plans, these were Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) plans. PPI claims are allowed to be investigated after the 6 year time limit has passed. However, this moratorium is just for PPI plans and not for other plans or investments.
 
During the infancy of the PPI review into possible mis-sold PPI plans, several ‘test cases’ went to Court. This was partly due to the fact that many PPI plan holders weren’t aware that they had taken out PPI with their loans, credit cards or mortgages (for example) in the first place. As a result of these Court rulings, the standard time limitations, as stipulated in the Dispute Resolution (DISP) rules, were lifted for PPI claims only.
 
However, the DISP rules apply to your plan, as above, which is a Decreasing Term Assurance.
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/11/2020 at 13:56, NGEddie said:

Hi HB

 

Sure, I recall being told I had to have the decreasing term life assurance alongside the mortgage which started in 2003 and this was by an advisor in the branch.

 

I submitted the PPi claim in 2019 in time which covered a loan ppimortgage ppi and this decreasing term life assurance. I referred to them all together as 'ppi and associated insurances' on advice.

 

They have admitted to miss-selling the loan in 1998, the mortgage ppi in 1999 but are saying there is a separate decreasing term life assurance team who I now need to make the complaint to which is where I am a little concerned?

 

Hope this helps.

 

E!

 

Anyone advice please?

 

Really not sure how to reply as feels like they are trying to separate the ppi and life assurance by pushing me to the other department. The whole thing with this was to group them together 

 

expand on the above, not got time to scan further back, but are you indicating that the reason for  this life protection was a loan that has since been deemed mis-sold by the original creditor?

 

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

read the letter in post 23 here 

Payplan - Cover My Life & Cover My Payments - Debt Management Plan Companies - Consumer Action Group

it explains how the 3/6yrs works straight from the ombudsman's mouth.

 

 

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 dx

 

Post 23 letter has been hidden as has a name in it. I did read the thread and in post 7 saw mention of 'must complain within 3 years of being aware it was mis-sold' if this is what you are referring to? Also my policy is live currently.

 

I think you know this, but it seems the RBS/Halifax agent doesnt know, that 'I became aware it was mis-sold just before I raised my claim (2019) having read a media article'  as I dont think the PPi team showed them the original claim form maybe, who knows.

 

Expanding, sorry I missed the word PPi after 'loan' in my post you quoted and highlighted. To be clear, the life protector was not for a loan, but a mortgage, and that mortgage did have a mis-sold PPi on it which they have admitted and refunded.

 

If it helps, I have several mortgage offers here from 1999 and they say 'Minimum life cover to be assigned to the bank' 

 

The odd thing here is, I started the mortgage and PPi in 1999 but it was 2003 this life assurance started. I do categorically recall being told it was something I had to have though.

 

Many thanks

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

try 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

Thanks now working and i've had a read.

 

I seems to make sense. They claim there were pressured into it, but were written to half way along advising it was optional and that would have been their time to complain.

 

In my case, I certainly didn't have anything saying it was optional, either at the start or part way through.

 

My form submitted in 2019 said

 

Finally, tell us now why you are unhappy with the policy(s) that you purchased:

 

I was told the ppi/associated insurances were compulsory for my situation and type mortgage and only recently learned this is not the case.

 

Where do we go from here please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think the matter of you were told the Decreasing Term Assurance was compulsory makes any difference, it doesn't detract from the fact the FOS appear to agree that disp does apply and you are out of time .

 

i don't think there is any harm going to the FOS with it..BUT

although, and this twigged my memory about DISP ( which didn't exist then) but the ABI code did, and i believe that doesn't cover your situation, i'e , the fact it was made compulsory is not against any guidelines that were around at the time.

 

you could drill down on the ABI coding and see what it advised about lenders making DTA compulsory, but sure as eggs is eggs, by 2005, when disp had arrived..all lenders were forced or had stopped long before making any type of life cover compulsory. so they knew their mis-selling of such was on the cards

 

Critical illness cover (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

 

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

Are you saying the 6/3 year rules does apply to me, even if I only realised it was mis-sold in 2019?

 

The agent is talking as if I knew this was not compulsory in 2003 when I signed for it 😕 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no link between the 3 and 6yrs limits.

they are sep entities 

 

you are being told under the 3yrs disp rule that you are out of time, the FOS seem to concur - re that other threads letter, however that rules might not apply if you have exceptional circumstances.

 

i am wondering if to date the lack of ref to the ABI code of conduct, if it applied in your case, fits the exceptional circumstances criteria.

 

you need to go look at the ABI code of conduct. i'e it should not have been made compulsory, i don't believe the other code DISC was in force till 2005

 

AFAIK ABI covers aLL INSURANCE PRODUCTS NOT JUST ppi....MIGHT BE A ROUTE?

 

 

ppi GISC + ABI code info case omb-decision-C.pdf

  • Like 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

Ok thanks, i'll have a read and finger crossed.

 

I wonder if there is a possible angle with Aviva if not as it transferred to them in 2011 I think it was 😕 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the mortgage it protects is still active is it not?
 

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 mean you paid the mortgage off that the policy protected and financed it with another policy from elsewhere...???

so why have you been paying for life insurance on a mortgage that has not existed since 2009?

 

surely the policy was to protect the mortgage is was taken out for and no longer has any benefit whatsoever to you and no-one will get anything out of it should you die?

 

what does it state it protects and who gets what ?

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

As you have made this so black and white, I have just realised I have probably made a total mess up here 😕

 

Yes, the original RBS mortgage from 1999 changed in 2009 to a buy-to-let with a different mortgage company, for the same property.

 

As I thought I had to have a life assurance, this would be ok, even though it was a much smaller amount.

 

It states the policy holder as myself and the property address and says 'in return for the payment of agreed premiums the company will pay the benefits in accordance to the policy conditions' it doenst really specify who would be paid. I have actual document here.

 

Something to mention, when I bought this property it was uninhabitable and I have never actually lived there. It was empty for ten years until 2009 when I got some additional borrowing, renovated it and let it out.

 

In 2011 therefore when it changed to Aviva, that mortgage had been paid off 2 years before.

 

I have a feeling you are going to say it was my responsibility to have cancelled the policy in 2009 with RSA or with Aviva?  

 

As I had been advised by RBS, I thought I had to life insurance/assurance of some kind as I had a mortgage.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think  I have anywhere to go on this please?

 

Should RBS have told me to cancel the policy when I stopped using them as a provider?

 

Should Aviva have checked the mortgage was in place when it transferred to them in 2011?

 

Does it make any difference RBS knew I wasn't living in the property 2003-2009?

 

Many thanks

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

what does the policy actually do?

if you died tomorrow what would happen ?

what payouts would goto who about what?

why don't you directly ask aviva?

  • Like 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

Called Aviva...

 

what does the policy actually do?

 

Covers/insures my life over 22 years from 2003 and decreases by 10% each year

 

if you died tomorrow what would happen ?

 

The policy would pay out the amount it has reduced by at that time

 

what payouts would goto who about what?

 

Payouts would go to the estate and this is not linked to any property or any mortgage or company

 

Thoughts?

 

Very frustrating as I do recall being advised I needed to have this 🤨

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...