PPI Nightmare!!!

[jackal123uk]

Hi all,

 

I'm sure many people are in the same boat with this one, just wondering if anyone has any solutions.

 

Even after a lengthy conversation with the salesman about me being in the armed forces and the benefits that brought greatly outweighing any need for the insurance the damn thing still got put on!!!

 

Anyway, I figure that it's pretty much my own fault for not checking what I was signing properly and have wrote off any chances of a refund for what I've already paid.

 

Now, after several letters and phone calls trying to cancel the policy for remaining length of the loan (just over 30 months) I was finally told that cancellation will only benefit me to the tune of about £50 because of the way the repayments are weighted toward the beginning of the loan. I understand the logic behind this weighting but from my calculations I seem to have paid 95% of the PPI in the first 50% of the loan period - do those figures make sense to anyone??

 

In all the paraphernalia that comes bundled with the loan paperwork is a page entitled "Personal Loan Agreement" which details the repayment schedule. This schedule clearly states the amounts repaid per month broken down into loan repayments and PPI repayments (£80.13 and £20.07 respectively) and makes not mention whatsoever of the PPI repayments being variable. Yet HFC tell me that cancelling the policy only equates to a refund of less that £2 per month.

 

OK, so here's my real question. I'm no expert but surely a document such as the on I just described, signed by both parties, constitutes a legal contract and as such HFC must honour it?? Does anyone know if I'm right?? Don't really fancy shouting my mouth off to HFC just for it to blow up in my face at it turn out I'm wrong...

 

Thanks in advance for any advice anyone may have...

 

Cheers

 

Karl

[hellhasnofury]

Hi all,

 

I'm sure many people are in the same boat with this one, just wondering if anyone has any solutions.

 

Even after a lengthy conversation with the salesman about me being in the armed forces and the benefits that brought greatly outweighing any need for the insurance the damn thing still got put on!!!

 

Anyway, I figure that it's pretty much my own fault for not checking what I was signing properly and have wrote off any chances of a refund for what I've already paid.

 

Now, after several letters and phone calls trying to cancel the policy for remaining length of the loan (just over 30 months) I was finally told that cancellation will only benefit me to the tune of about £50 because of the way the repayments are weighted toward the beginning of the loan. I understand the logic behind this weighting but from my calculations I seem to have paid 95% of the PPI in the first 50% of the loan period - do those figures make sense to anyone??

 

In all the paraphernalia that comes bundled with the loan paperwork is a page entitled "Personal Loan Agreement" which details the repayment schedule. This schedule clearly states the amounts repaid per month broken down into loan repayments and PPI repayments (£80.13 and £20.07 respectively) and makes not mention whatsoever of the PPI repayments being variable. Yet HFC tell me that cancelling the policy only equates to a refund of less that £2 per month.

 

OK, so here's my real question. I'm no expert but surely a document such as the on I just described, signed by both parties, constitutes a legal contract yes and as such HFC must honour it yes?? Does anyone know if I'm right?? YES Don't really fancy shouting my mouth off to HFC just for it to blow up in my face at it turn out I'm wrong..don't know, if you don't try, Personally I would hit them with both barrels.

 

Thanks in advance for any advice anyone may have...

 

Cheers

 

Karl

 

Hello Karl,

 

Interesting thread, put some bits it red for your attention please also read this link and maybe mention it to them in a letter, do all communication to them by letter, unless you record any conversations with them.

 

Consumers to benefit from PPI refunds agreement

 

Maybe also post on the ppi forum and have a read of different threads on there

[ukaviator]

Thread moved, you will get more advice here.

[hellhasnofury]

Hello,

 

Looks like uk is having a tidy up,

 

anymore news on this one.

[ukaviator]

That's what i was wondering before i moved the thread. Some people tend to be forgotten.

[hellhasnofury]

That's what i was wondering before i moved the thread. Some people tend to be forgotten.

 

But not forgot uk very thoughtful of you:D

[ukaviator]

I can see Jackal123uk lurking below.

 

Hello Karl, how are you getting on?

[jackal123uk]

Hi,

 

This particular mission of mine has been on the back burner lately, but I've just finished drafting a rather sternly written letter (included a line insisting all further correspondence be in writing - thanks hellhasnofury).

 

If and when I get a reply I'll keep everyone posted.

 

Also, something else I'm trying to get me head around is how they calculate interest for such front loaded schemes. I'm quite good at maths but I can't get it, it looks as though interest is calculated as normal for equal payments, but surely this is wrong and the actual interest should be a lot less. I'd intended to add a complaint about this in the letter too, but because I'm unsure I've omitted it.

[ukaviator]

They used Rule 78, which is'nt used anymore in the industry. The number 78 is based on the 12 months of a one-year period. When the 12 months are added together (12+11+10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2 +1) you get 78. This means that if you have a loan to be repaid in one-year, the lender will expects you to pay 12/78ths of the interest in the first month and 11/78ths in the second, continuing like this until the final month.

 

If the loan is paid off early, the lender may use the rule of 78 to determine how much interest you do not have to pay. In many cases, due to the interest element being larger in the repayments at the beginning of the loan, a large amount of capital can remain to be repaid.

 

The use of the Rule 78 to calculate a refund has now been shown to be unfair and unreasonable to the customer and banks are no longer able to use this rule in rebates.

 

The rule of 78 was a rule set out in Regulations issued under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Therefore no way is a court going to find it unlawful.

 

I have found a Calculator here if anyone wants to check their figures:

 

Rule of 78 Loan Calculator

 

uK

[skbuncks]

Hi all,

 

Even after a lengthy conversation with the salesman about me being in the armed forces and the benefits that brought greatly outweighing any need for the insurance the damn thing still got put on!!!

 

Rule of 78 aside from the info given it looks to me like the PPI was mis-sold!!! Personally I would press for a full refund.

If im wrong then someone please shoot me down in flames

 

skb

[ukaviator]

Yes go for the full amount. You can prove it was mis sold by being in the Armed Forces. No more back burner, get that letter in.

[gt568]

You can prove it was mis sold by being in the Armed Forces.

 

How is this so? Being in the RAF and also reclaiming, I'd be curious to know.