PPI and Court

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI and Court

loan one was not refinanced i paid that one up early hence why loan two payment is lower

PF

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI and Court

I've not looked at the amortisation spreadies that Turbo has posted, yet, but I think the reason why we need the settlement figure(s) may not quite have been grasped, here, Wendy.

What we REALLY need to know is how much of the loan advance for Loan 2 (et al...) is composed of PPI. Simplistic example, if I may...

Loan 1.
£4000 plus £1000 PPI = total loaned £5000.
Therefore, 20% of each and every payment is PPI.
If 10 payments of £200 were made, then we paid £400 in PPI, which we now reclaim (plus 8%)
If the settlement of loan 1 was £4000, then we have to treat this as a final loan repayment, in which case £800 of this was PPI

Loan 2.
£6000 plus £1500 PPI = total loaned £7500.
HOWEVER - £4000 of that loan was the settlement for loan 1, wasn't it ?
AND - of that £4000, £800 was PPI carried forward from loan 1, wasn't it ?
SO - the actual PPI in loan 2 was not £1500, but £2300.

...and this carries on throughout the sequence of loans.

So, unless we have a settlement figure, we don't have a PPI amount to carry forward.

There are further complications too - such as PPI rebates upon loan settlement. Sure - we don't really need to know the APR% (after we have amortised) - but we need to know the PPI apportionment, which changes with each loan.

Regarding the monthly repayments, these will be dependent upon the amount loaned AND the loan term. So (simplistically) - a loan (including interest) of £4800 over 48 months would require 48 payments of £100 - but the same loan over 60 months would only require £80 repayments.

[WendyB]

Re: PPI and Court

Blimey, am I ever going to get to bed?? Just had yet another look, and it's becoming clearer, or it's getting worse, can't make up my mind!

I understood that the loans were all "refinanced". In which case, that would mean that a portion of the second loan, for example, was used to pay off the first loan (hence all the argy bargy about settlemnt figures). If this is indeed the case, then I completely fail to see why the repayments on the second loan would be lower than those on the first? i.e, the balance of the first loan (ignoring PPI) would be about 3550. Add on loan 2 of 3000, gives a total (new) loan of 6500. Yet the payments are lower than those of Loan 1, which was for a smaller amount?.

If, however, Loan 2 was just an additional loan, rather than a refinance, this would explain things. As in if Loan 1 was settled by other means, say, by a remortgage. This would put a whole new complexion on matters wouldn't it?

A quick look at the spreadsheets reveals you've treated each loan as a separate, stand alone loan. But if any of the loans were refinancing the one before, then this would mean the spreadsheets would be incorrect, wouldn't it, as the starting figure would be wrong. I seem to remember in an earlier post Pompey said that some loans were refinances, and some were settled by other means, such as remortgage. I think you'd need to know which were which, as it could have a considerable impact on the amoritisation and final figures.

And on that note I am finally off to bed, if the above is complete rubbish please let me know, and put me straight!

And ps. only just noticed your compliment about "fairly knowledgable poster" - thanks muchly, but I don't think I'd go quite that far.......:tinysmile_hmm_t2:

[WendyB]

Re: PPI and Court

Turbo, I can't open Exel files cos I haven't got it on my laptop and it's too late to be messing around with downloading Open Office at this time of night - I should have been in bed hours ago! But I'll have a look tomorrow when I'm at work (if the boss is kind enough to bugger off!) If not it will be Thursday, as I know he's out most of the day Just from memory of what I did on PF's stuff though, that 4314 figure does sound vaguely familiar. But then, that meant the next one should then have been a starting amount of 7314 (4314 +3000 new loan) so why was the payment lower than that of the first loan? Or am I missing something? Have you got the word doc which summarises the loans?

And as for "Participation at last" I would have participated before but it was all a bit technical, lol. Then I suddenly had this sort of, well, errm, Eureka moment/light bulb switch on, call it whatever, when I just thought "oh for God's sake, ignore the bloody PPI, work out what just the loans/repayments would have/should have been". As in A+B=C. So therefore C-A must equal B. (You know, the old change side, change sign trick :-) If we have two parts of the sum then we can work out the third part.

So then Pompey sent me the details, I started working on it, he got the offer, boss reappeared from hols, you two got on the case, amoritisation was kicked into touch...and well....you know the rest...
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Update - I don't know why, but my laptop has now decided I can view Exel files!

Anyway, I've had a quick look at the first one, and it makes perfect sense, except, you still include the PPI. My plan of action was to ignore the PPI completely. So just do the amoritisation on 4650. Just work purely on the loan amounts and payments. All the way to the end of the line.

I believe PF has statements for all loans except the first one. And anyway Co-Op have kindly provide the figures paid, which can be checked against the statements. So, we know (or can add up) what he has ACTUALLY paid, in total.(A) If you then take the figures from amoritising the loans (which is what he would have paid without the PPI) (B) from that, then you'll have the figure which should be refunded. (C).
A-B=C.

Seemples! (I think)

[Turboman]

Re: PPI and Court

Remaining 6 to 9

[Turboman]

Re: PPI and Court

[quote=WendyB;173292]I think approximation and extrapolation will at least give a base figure, see how close it comes to what they have offered, give or take a few quid. If the first loan was for, say, 5k, and amorisitisation shows that when the loan was refinanced, 3k was outstanding, then the 2nd loan was for 6.5k, this should include the balance outstanding, so presume the settlement figures to be "our" figures, and so on to the next refinance etc. And if you do it this way, you don't actually need to know what the settlement figures were anyway, you would simply be working on amounts borrowed, and amounts paid back. Doesn't matter what the settlement figres were, does it really, my thought is that by trying to work out the settlemet figures, you're looking for a figure that you don't really need for the calculations, in as much as you have the ACTUAL figures borrowed, and can calculate, pretty accurately, the ACTUAL figures paid back.

To be honest, what their settlement figures may or may not have been, is, in my view, somewhat academic. We are going to be working on what SHOULD (with the correct calculations, interest rate applied and payments made) have been paid, then comparing it to what HAS been paid, in order to get the "overpaymeny" ie PPI figure. If the figures are different then that will only put the onus on them to show why they are different, if they are significantly different.

Does that make any sense at all to anyone except me, or am I talking complete garbage?[/quote

Bloody Hell Bill

Parcipitation at last!!!!----by a fairly knowledgable poster

Wendy--a while back -we developed a Amortization SS based on the Excel template-- (I don't understand interest formulae by the way---Gorilla specialises!)

I enclose the first Loan 1 Amort SS which gives an o/s balance of £4314.10

See what you think of the others & summarise them if you will so i can npaste into a summary ss

Turbo

[WendyB]

Re: PPI and Court

I think approximation and extrapolation will at least give a base figure, see how close it comes to what they have offered, give or take a few quid. If the first loan was for, say, 5k, and amorisitisation shows that when the loan was refinanced, 3k was outstanding, then the 2nd loan was for 6.5k, this should include the balance outstanding, so presume the settlement figures to be "our" figures, and so on to the next refinance etc. And if you do it this way, you don't actually need to know what the settlement figures were anyway, you would simply be working on amounts borrowed, and amounts paid back. Doesn't matter what the settlement figres were, does it really, my thought is that by trying to work out the settlemet figures, you're looking for a figure that you don't really need for the calculations, in as much as you have the ACTUAL figures borrowed, and can calculate, pretty accurately, the ACTUAL figures paid back.

To be honest, what their settlement figures may or may not have been, is, in my view, somewhat academic. We are going to be working on what SHOULD (with the correct calculations, interest rate applied and payments made) have been paid, then comparing it to what HAS been paid, in order to get the "overpayment" ie PPI figure. If the figures are different then that will only put the onus on them to show why they are different, if they are significantly different.

Does that make any sense at all to anyone except me, or am I talking complete garbage?

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI and Court

I'm sure there must be a record of settlement figures for each of these loans somewhere - BUT - if not, then I guess we will need to do our best to approximate these. So, it looks like Wendy's amortisation is not such a vain idea as I perhaps have implied - and I apologise if I gave it 'short shrift,' ma'am.

In the end, if PF has done all he can do to get the info we require - and we STILL do not have such 'root' data as loan settlement figures, then we have to do our best to approximate. If the lender finally challenges those approximations by producing figures WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO THE DSAR, then they condemn themselves already, don't they ?

So.....let's amortise, then...

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI and Court

I just know bill n turbo love getting there teeth into a complicated one so thank you guys

[WendyB]

Re: PPI and Court

I just cheated and used the loan amoritisation tables at bankrate.com as I am crap at inventing spreadsheets. They work on fixed interest rates, chuck in the figures, press calc and Bob's your uncle. Count down to how many payments paid before new loan was taken out, gives a figure of outstanding balance. Add this to new loan etc to give a new starting balance, put in new interest rates, and term, press calc and away you go again....very quick and easy. However, unfortunately, with the figures I'd got I couldn't make it work. I know I have the correct principle but unfortunately the figures PF gave me didn't correlate....I had just started my interrogation of him. (PF will no doubt tell you he's thankful he esaped!!!) but then you and Bill popped up and I got a get out of jail card LMAO! But if I can be of any use, just shout!

[Turboman]

Re: PPI and Court

Glad to have done a bit of activating Turbo:-). I just thought that bringing it down to the simplest level would be easiest, i.e ignore PPI completely, just work on the loan amounts, use amoritisation (cos the loans were fixed rates), get a figure of how much should have been paid just for the loans. Then take this figure from the total amount (incPPI) actually paid. The difference should be the amount paid for PPI including interest on the PPI.
Doe this make sense or am I being oversimplistic and naive? ......or blonde????

Great activation Wendy

Me & Bill are used to dealing with ever changing % rates---yet these are fixed---will post up where I think we are at on outstanding balances as at time of loan settlement


But---Oh--its just like Harriett in trying to get the info from PF---Lol

from post 177 here--- http://www.penaltychargesforum.co.uk...330#post448330

Turbo

[WendyB]

Re: PPI and Court

Glad to have done a bit of activating Turbo:-). I just thought that bringing it down to the simplest level would be easiest, i.e ignore PPI completely, just work on the loan amounts, use amoritisation (cos the loans were fixed rates), get a figure of how much should have been paid just for the loans. Then take this figure from the total amount (incPPI) actually paid. The difference should be the amount paid for PPI including interest on the PPI.
Doe this make sense or am I being oversimplistic and naive? ......or blonde????

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI and Court

I have discussed this with PF in the ""enclave" & (I believe) that all parties agree that the PAG template of yesteryear is both erroneous & mis-leading

Agreed Totally

Thank You

Amazing that in the two years this complaint has been ongoing no one from cag particularly site team members have pointed this out.

Just goes to prove where the brains lie.

And more so that the site team has not realised that there SS do not work.

Well Done

PF
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Will be back in 5 need a top up.

PF

[Turboman]

Re: PPI and Court

Ha Ha--Bill-K

Right--This post is purely to discount the methods in the CAG SS adopted by Pompey (I know you Pompey have discounted them-but me & Bill feel that this particular SS should be discounted for ever)-AND people should underderstand the reasons:

The illustration by PF on Loan 1 is at post 43---HOWEVER the basic FLAW is that the assumption on interest is LINEAR-NOT progressive

resulting in Total PPI Interest of £764.94 (34% of total interest)

However--even the agreement details total PPI interest of £421.77

THE FLAW is that thew SS assumes linear interest---rather than the universal "interest on the outstanding balance"

Carried forward to the 2nd W/S also componds the erroneous principles

I have discussed this with PF in the ""enclave" & (I believe) that all parties agree that the PAG template of yesteryear is both erroneous & mis-leading

Accordingly---I reccomend that all PPI claimants using ex-PAG SS should start again!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only way to tackle the situation is by " Apportionment factors" (ratios of PPI Loan to Total Loan"

I will explain the principles in the next post so everyone knows Bill & I methods.

In the meantime--as these loans are FIXED %--Wendy has activated a few thoughts-and I have created a set of 9 Amortization SS with express intention of deriving the outstanding balance at settlement ( the key info we want is the settlement details-but the SAR did not include statements nor settlement letters----which they should have)

Will post summary plus loan 1 example next

Turbo

Ah--i POSTED pag (PENALTYACTION GROUP (WHERE ME & bILL HANG OUT)--RATHER THAN CAG ----SACKABLE OFFENCE

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI and Court

PS--PF--have you heard "The ballad of Lucy ******" by Marianne Faithful ?
Ooooooh, No !! - Put a sock in it, Turbo !!!
PS--If Turbo is invited to join a thread---WYSIWYG!!! + Queen !!
"That's why they call him Mr. Fahrenheit !!!!"

....