PPI and Court

[WendyB]

Re: PPI and Court

To be honest I thought amoritising would have been simpler, and easier, the bit I didn't get was where the loan was refinanced, yet the new payment was lower than the original? Or was the new payment in addition to the original? This was where I started to ask PF but then the next day the offer appeared, and now my boss has come back from his hols so couldn't carry on anyway

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI and Court

Blimey, Wendy. You deserve one shed-load of Brownie points for that, IMO !!! Amortisation can be a nightmare. MS Excel has a function for it, and there are numerous spreadies and progs for it, but in the end it is a projection of how the value of an item diminishes to zero, during its' life-span.

There are many ways that this is done, but where a loan has been consolidated into another, then we have no need of 'projection' as such. We already have a 'fait accomplis.' What's done is done....what's paid is paid.

The problem we have is to determine EXACTLY how much of the previous loan has been carried forward to the next, and that needs clear 'settlement figures.' It's not so much a case of amortisation, as a need for extrapolation.

It's a bit like kinky sex - but for geeks !!!!

[Turboman]

Re: PPI and Court

To be honest I thought amoritising would have been simpler, and easier, the bit I didn't get was where the loan was refinanced, yet the new payment was lower than the original? Or was the new payment in addition to the original? This was where I started to ask PF but then the next day the offer appeared, and now my boss has come back from his hols so couldn't carry on anyway

Hi Wendy

I'm a bit late on the scene--but Amortization usually is no good on a Variable Rate (ever increasing rate like FirstPlusand the poster forgets to file the % increase letters)--on PAG a couple of years ago -me & Bill used all sorts of programs on this--see Understanding Loan Amortization on either PAG or PCF

Where we are going at the moment--(in order to catch up -then move forward)-is to create a composite spreadsheet with the 9 loans as separate w/s (in 2003 format) (Bill has the main bits in our enclave)--and then I will create a summary w/s of these 9 w/s & also include the Co-op calcs as posted + our expectations based on our knowledge of the Rebates/ PPI refunds (none )

We will then coerce PF for extra info as and when required

We expect to be ready EDIT--WEDS/Thurs--

Rest encorouged that we will be back

PS--PF--have you heard "The ballad of Lucy ******" by Marianne Faithful ?

PS--If Turbo is invited to join a thread---WYSIWYG!!! + Queen !!

[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 !!!!"

....

[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

[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

[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????

[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

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!

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI and Court

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

[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...

[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?

[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

[Turboman]

Re: PPI and Court

Remaining 6 to 9

[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)