Direct auto financial services redress

[Pollyy]

Hi there can abybody help with ppi jargon? Apparently my claim has been uphell and i have to sign an acceptance letter but dont understand what i am agreeing to and can only contact them through letter. 🙄

- - - Updated - - -

Excuse my spelling ��

[Amethyst]

Re: Direct auto financial services redress

Can you type out or post a picture of the letter here ? ( going to be tricky to tell you what it means otherwise lol )

Remove any identifying details first !

( or email me admin@legalbeagles.info if you have trouble posting it up here )

[Pollyy]

Re: Direct auto financial services redress

Thank you for the quick reply �� i think i have uploaded the letter, i have a calculation sheet to and then an offer letter to sign i accept in full and final settlement.

[Amethyst]

Re: Direct auto financial services redress

They're using the PPI refund to reduce your outstanding balance.

Do they include the calculations ?

Do you know the position with your finance currently ?

( from that it sounds like you currently owe 1743 and they are taking off the £213 to leave a balance of £1530 but it is worded really poorly so could do with clarification before accepting)

The terms of acceptance will be on the sheet that you have to sign and return, so need to post a copy of that really xxx

[Pollyy]

Re: Direct auto financial services redress

I have uploaded tbem both. I wasnt aware i owed them anything thia goes back to 2003 and i gave the car back after 2 years.x i dont think ill be signing anything!!x

- - - Updated - - -

Calculations x

[Amethyst]

Re: Direct auto financial services redress

Well I can see why you're confused ! No I wouldn't be signing that without any further clarification.

It does sound like they are saying you will be refunded £213 which will come off the outstanding balance of £1700 leaving £1500 due. ( so you don't get anything)

Did you VT the car after paying half ? Any outstanding amounts owing as far as you know ? ( if it was back in 2003/2005 then it would be statute barred if you've not been making payments )

I'm uncertain on the rules around the commission - they seem to have removed the commission ( of 68% ) then added 50% of it back in as allowable - so that wants looking into - and they seem to have taken the full commission out of the PPI elements that you had paid ( 24 / 25 months at £24.97 ?) surely that should be reduced proportionally as well.

Need someone good at the maths side to have a look - [MENTION=189]Turboman[/MENTION] ?

Ahh re Plevin - > https://www.hcrlaw.com/blog/ppi-plev...inal-guidance/ - arguable

THE FCA: LEVEL OF REDRESS

The FCA has introduced the concept of a “50% presumptive tipping point”. What this means in practice is that a firm should presume, when assessing a PPI complaint, that a failure to disclose commission of 50% or more would give rise to an unfair relationship under s.140. In such cases, the relevant redress to be paid would be the difference between the commission paid by the customer and 50% of the premium (for example, in Mrs Plevin’s case, the appropriate redress would therefore be 21.8%, being the difference between 50% and the 71.8% commission paid); plus historic (contractual) interest; plus annual simple interest at 8%.

However, the FCA has also gone further and has also now made rules with regard to profit share. This means that not only will consumers be entitled to seek the return of the ‘tipping point’ portion of the PPI premium, but they can also seek the return of any profit share which applied to the PPI (meaning any arrangement that the firm had to potentially receive back some of the amount paid in relation to the PPI which had initially gone to the insurer). In practice, this causes real difficulties. The FCA has acknowledged that most firms did not record profit share in terms of the individual PPI policies. For firms to apply profit share to redress will inevitably require a broad-brush approach to be taken. i.e. the redress paid will have to be based on a reasonable estimate rather than the actual amount to which an individual premium will have contributed.

Consumers had argued that the full premium should be returned as a consequence of the non-disclosure of commission. However, the FCA has made clear that it does not consider that this would be the appropriate measure of redress. To do so would remove any real distinction between a mis-sale and an unfair relationship and would also give excessive redress where a consumer has had the benefit of the policy’s protection before the complaint was made. Equally, in the FCA’s view, the return of all of the commission plus interest would also provide too much redress: in its view it is fair and reasonable for a lender to keep the portion of commission under the tipping point in recognition of the work carried out.

[Pollyy]

Re: Direct auto financial services redress

Yes i returned it to them voluntarily.xx

[Amethyst]

Re: Direct auto financial services redress

Actually seems just to be a refund of unfair commission re Plevin.

Had you actually made a missold PPI complaint ?

[Pollyy]

Re: Direct auto financial services redress

Yes to them a few years back, it wasnt sucessful, then out of the blue they wrote to me in october saying rules had changed somethinv to do with comission did i want to try again, they asked for copy of driving licence utility bill and bank statement if i wanted to go ahead so i sent what they asked for and just received this letter today.xxx

[Amethyst]

Re: Direct auto financial services redress

Did you take the PPI complaint to the ombudsman back then ? ( ie was it the ombudsman ruled it wasn't missold or DAF ?)

[Pollyy]

Re: Direct auto financial services redress

No i didnt i just accepted i wasnt due anything back then.xx

[Pollyy]

Re: Direct auto financial services redress

And if there was a debt back then that is now SB (im not aware of one) me signing would brink it back i believe? Xx im so confused lol xx

[Turboman]

Re: Direct auto financial services redress

Hi Polly


Sorry to be so tardy after Ame “belled” me—but not logged on for a couple of weeks.


I’ll just summarise the facts I have gleaned from this thread.

· You took out a car agreement sometime in 2003/2004 which included a PPI policy which resulted in a deposit (to the PPI portion of the agreement) of £158.24

· The agreement was for 48 months and the mthly PPI payment was £24.9757

· You subsequently made 19 monthly payments (derived from the( £632.78-£158.24) divided by £24.9757

· You then handed the car back and assumed that you owed no further money.

· After being mailshot by your lender you supplied the details and you were then informed that your redress would be £115.91 + 8% interest of £121.93 less 20% income tax deducted of £24.39 resulting in total redress of £213.45.

· However-your statements & acceptance letter introduce the fact that they consider you have an outstanding balance of £1,743.79 and effectively applies your redress to this balance-resulting in their statement that you now still have an outstanding balance of £1,530.34

There are 2 points for me to discuss therefore:

1. Are the sums correct?
2. Should you sign the acceptance letter bearing in mind that it details a still outstanding balance you were not aware of?

1. Are the sums correct?

The FCA Guidelines for Plevin claims on excessive commission state that 50% is acceptable but anything over this sum is not-----so in your case of 68.32% commission would result in a return of 18.32% commission plus compensatory interest of 8% simple interest (calculated on EACH PAYMENT FROM THE DATE IT WAS PAID TO THE DATE OF REDRESS-in your case31/12/2017.)

On the facts supplied (without having sight of the original CCA which would have been useful) I agree with the sums as supplied.

I attach a PDF & an Excel Spreadsheet below to illustrate.

Note that by “reverse engineering” I have derived that the agreement was signed around 1/4/2004 and monthly payments started 1 month later.

POLLYPPI.pdf

POLLYPPI.xls


2. Should you sign the acceptance letter bearing in mind that it details a still outstanding balance you were not aware of?

Hmmm---this is where I am not so confident (ie I’m a sums geek-lol) .
I note that Ame has raised the question of Statute Barred which is something to bear in mind –but afraid I’m not an expert on this subject.

However-on researching on theFCA websites I see that this statement might be important

You may be eligible to get back some money if your PPI policy covered repayments on a credit agreement – like a credit card, loan or mortgage – and you:

• took it out before 6 April 2007, but it was still open on or after 6 April 2008 (even if you had stopped using it)
• took it out on or after 6 April 2007 (whether or not it was still open on or after 6 April 2008)

see https://www.fca.org.uk/ppi/eligible-claim-commission

Soooo----like you & Ame----I would not sign theacceptance letter of £213.45 redress as it effectively would acknowledge the b/f balance of £1,743.79

Hope this helps

Turbs

[Amethyst]

Re: Direct auto financial services redress

Bless you Turbs, Thank you for taking a look : ) Very much appreciated.

Happy New Year xxxx

[Debt Camel]

Re: Direct auto financial services redress

I am assuming that you owed money after you handed the car back. On Turbs figures it looks as though you only made 19 out of 48 payments which is not half, so it does seem possible there was money owing but it's impossible to guess how much.

So is this debt statute barred?

Two general points...

Making a PPI complaint will normally count as acknowledging the debt. Even if you don't get a refund or refuse a refund which is offered.

If a debt is statute barred, nothing you do, including making a PPI complaint and accepting a refund, will "unbar it".

Yes [made a PPI complaint to them] a few years back, it wasn't successful,

What date was this previous complaint? And when you made the complaint, did they inform you at the time that there was any money owing?