PPI and Court

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI and Court

There are some scribbles on some of the sheets which i guess is the fos checking them but i still think we should wait for the sar info just incase the reclusive settlement on the first loan does show up

[Turboman]

Re: PPI and Court

There are some scribbles on some of the sheets which i guess is the fos checking them but i still think we should wait for the sar info just incase the reclusive settlement on the first loan does show up

Indeed-- Lets me & Bill Marshy have the weekend on loans 2-9 anyway--& now we can look at proposals for loan 9 restructuring alsowhich we haven't bother to analyse yet-what with us concentrating on the apparent non-rebated loans.

The key to the figures is always the settlement figures--and is where the big sums are refunded + 8% come from.

But--Loan 1 is still where the big discrepancy will be I suspect

Turbo

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI and Court

I think bill must have them as it was only your email address that was bounced back

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI and Court

Right converting them to pdf files then adobe will reduce the file size down

[nelliewops]

Re: PPI and Court

Hi PF

Very pleased to hear things are moving in the right direction with this - despite all the JR news, maybe some good news (and well deserved dosh, lol) will be coming your way soon!

Apologies, I haven't been around much the last couple of days as we've had internet probs and have been in London today!

Nellie x

[Turboman]

Re: PPI and Court

PF has sent me the info from FOS--Here's the covering letter --this Loan 1 (where I think the big money is) could be interesting

I won't post the 9 calculation sheets yet until me & Marshy have analysed them over the weekend as they are very very detailed indeed.

Note the bit on the letter re the DSAR & Marc Davies at the CO-Op

We have succeeded in both getting the FOS to show us their sums AND PF is at last going to get all his Loan Statements from the Co-op

Turbo

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI and Court

Turboman,

Thank you and take your time as we are still waiting for DSAR info so there is no rush

Kindest Regards

PF

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI and Court

Soz. Had some family stuff to attend to - so, a bit short of time. And patience - LOL !!! Here's my response to the FOS reply, PF., FWIW:-

Well, at least the FOS seem to have read the last letter, and made some attempt to answer it - and they have provided the figures which the Co-Op supplied them. Although a little more detailed than the figures provided in the Co-Op letters to PF, they are still no more than a set of sub-totals which eventually comprise the final settlement offers. There is no detail as to how these sub-totals were calculated, but what we have is a little better than what the Co-Op provided originally.

The FOS appear to be saying that the Co-Op had no data for Loan 1, and that because of this, the FOS cannot direct them to repay any Loan 1 PPI. Therefore (in the FOS's opinion), any offer the Co-Op has made for Loan 1 is a GOGW, and as such the FOS cannot apply their guidelines. But, if I recall correctly, they actually supplied some data for this loan eventually, didn't they ? Surely, they must have had SOME data, or they woudn't have known how many payments you made - and YOU didn't tell them that, because you originally thought it was 19 pmts., and not the 18 they have stated. So - I think the FOS has been misled into believing there is no data for Loan 1, and should be told this.

OK - so the Co-Op appear to know the original loan agreement details, and that 18 monthly repayments were made, and have used this data to make an offer. So, in effect, they have acknowledged the existence of this loan, and the PPI sold with it. That being the case, they should also acknowledge that this loan must have been settled - one way or another - and that this settlement would have included the remaining PPI. To acknowledge the loan's existence, and the total monthly payments made to it - but to then totally ignore the existence of the outstanding balance is clearly ridiculous. But, we cannot get the FOS to question this, because they are currently treating it as a GOGW. If we can get the FOS to treat this as a formal PPI claim settlement offer, then we should be able to get them to look into the loan settlement PPI, I reckon.

A possible route might be to say that it was clearly (albeit partly) consolidated into Loan 2, because the dates of the final Loan 1 repayment and the inception of Loan 2 clearly point to this. This would then at least mean that we can question the FOS's endorsement of the Loan 2 offer, and this would ripple through if Loan 3 was a consolidation, etc. In this vein, I would also venture to suggest that we take the principal FOS guideline that the claimant should be put back into the position they would have been if PPI had not been sold to them, when deciding if we should 'carry forward' PPI from one loan to another. Whether or not there is any written evidence that a loan has been consolidated, I believe that if we can show that the claimant would have been better off by £XXX amount of PPI at the start of a 'contiguous' loan (ie., where the dates clearly show that one loan was taken out (more or less) immediately after the previous loan was settled) - then we can treat the subsequent loan as having £XXX amount of PPI within the main advance. I guess I'm saying that it seems reasonable to me to claim this, on the strength of the FOS guideline, and see what response we get to this.

[WendyB]

Re: PPI and Court

I seem to remember PF saying that Loan 1 wasn't consolidated into Loan 2, it was settled. Which would be confirmed by the fact that the Loan 2 payments are lower than those of Loan 1, which they wouldn't be if it had been consolidated, they would be higher, not lower.

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI and Court

That's my recollection, too, Wendy. Loan 2 advance was £3000, whereas Loan 1 advance was £4,650, so Loan 2 pmts would be lower than Loan 1.

What I was trying to say above is that - IMHO - 'consolidation' doesn't have to be formally documented or proven before we can 'carry forward' the PPI element of a previous loan settlement to a subsequent loan. A red herring, maybe. The FOS guidelines do not stipulate this (nor the FSA ones, as far as I recall). It can be clearly shown that PF would have been £825 better off when he took out Loan 2, but for the mis-sold PPI included in the Loan 1 settlement. Thus it follows that he would not have had to take out the full £3000 advance in Loan 2 - but just £2,150. Therefore, he had to borrow £825 more than he would have done (if PPI were not mis-sold) - AND he had to pay account loan interest on that.

In effect, I'm saying that - even if consolidation isn't a factor, we (and the FOS) should still consider the claimant's entire circumstances when considering the effects of the mis-selling, and that this is what the guidelines seem to say we should do.

Additionally, I forgot to mention that the FOS response above seems to totally ignore the suggestion that it is ridiculous that they suggest that claimants accept an offer of an undisclosed sum, which NOBODY has actually checked for accuracy or fairness, purely on the ASSUMPTION by the FOS that it is fair and reasonable.

[Turboman]

Re: PPI and Court

Bill

Bit behind in my discussions with Marshy on account of A & E & my bust big toe--(but we are on the case as we speak)--be back later tonight

Turbo

[Turboman]

Re: PPI and Court

• Hi PF--can't believe I've only been on your case for 3 weeks - thought it was 3 years--lol　

Summarising where we were up to:

• We weren't happy that the FOS wouldn't give us the sums--but Bill's teasing letters resulting in lots more info which is only with me & Marshy
• We demanded the Loan Statements by DSAR by PF which is being actioned　

Right--me & Marshy have discussed the info on the Calculation Sheets over 150 E-Mails--ish & we produce a joint response to you here--Bill is obviously working and will post soon---but I anticipate he will endorse all our sums-but challenge the arguments on what to do about Loan 1 with it's missing paperwork.

Three weeks ago , I joined your thread at Bill's invitation, and soon also invited my friend Marshallka from MSE (we call her Marshy) to help me with Rule Of 78 Settlement Figures (in absence of real settlement figures)-& sure enough--we have been a catalyst to each other & bonded for ever more ( although we do have history-lol)! ---resulting in me modifying my SS's & "Bill trying to keep up-lol "

The key to all the big sums in PPI is the Settlement Figure-and in the abscence of proper statements--we have to do the best we can -- using the Stewart Rule of 78 Calculator - Equal installments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On CAG originally the site used erroneosu spreadsheets and encouraged you (PF) to claim rediculous amounts £20,000 to ££25,000--however both me & Marshy believe you should have accepted the 2008 offer and closed the case--taking into account your then health problems

Also--in the abence of the real info (your Number of Payments info & recollection of refunds was wayout!!)--I myself may have raised your expectations on Loans 1 2 & 4 (where the letters suggested no PPI refund) therefore big sums.

However,Marsh always thought that at last minute Co-Op would declare Refunds & Rebates--(I'm a black & White person & only work with proven facts)-and sure enough they appeared out of the woodwork

-so there you go!
But we are where we are-so onwards:
　


There are 3 main issues:

• The Initial Loan 1 with missing paperwork
• The Settled Loand 2-8
• The Active Loan-number 9　

The initial loan is the one to create discussion
　
Co-op ofer is ££806-ish wheras both me & Marshy think £2,372-ish-However, this assumes that the loan was settled!!! & the outstanding balance paid off
　
I produce both the current view from both Marshey & Bill

Marshey

I don't think you are right though with Loan 1... in fact I think if PF continues to argue loan 1 he may lose what they have already offered. Its only goodwill and they have no records and FOS cannot make them produce records, in fact no court on the land can so he could stand to lose the lot. I would say that he definately got a rebate against the insurance. I know that there is a calculation sheet but this is done recently due to the aruging of it and it clearly states in the FOS letter that they have no records of settlement.

I think that whatever they have offered is because they cannot say what he settled the loan at and if they could I would bet that the refund was about 73% of the unused PPI (as all the rest).

Bill's view

The 'GOGW' status of loan 1 concerns me, and I feel we may need to look into this. If the Co-Op had no data, then who told them it was only 18 payments, and not 19 ? Not PF, as far as I can see. This sure doesn't smell like goodwill to me.

If they only had 18 payments made, then why didn't they register a default ? It was clearly settled, unless they prove otherwise, IMHO. If it wasn't - then, as PF points out, why did they immediately grant another loan.

Goodwill is just SOOOOOO not a part of this, and we need to prove that, I feel.


Bill again

The only problem we seem to have left is the settlement of Loan 1, and its' subsequent treatment. With your excellent diagnostics, we can project a pretty damned accurate figure, I reckon. But we need to get the FOS to agree that Loan 1 MUST have been settled, first, it seems.

Following that, we then need to see if we can apply the 'carry forward' principle to the loans which do not have an explicit 'consolidation' status, I reckon. Only then can we accurately deal with the final loan - which is the final outcome of all this.

It may not be comfortable, but I do like the way that we are all coming at this from our own directions. There will be sparks, I'm sure - but the dynamics we're getting here are b100dy awesome, I reckon !!!

　
I,myself am now leaning towarda Marshy's view--but Bill might see it as a matter of principle

The Settled Loans of loans 2 to loan 8


Marshy & me agree with Co-op figures to within £175 at todays 8% Date---so we agree with Co-op



The remaining Active Loan (Loan 9)

We haven't looked at that yet--but on the evidence we have seen on other calculation sheets-we have no reason to doubt the figures

SOOOOOO--PF--The Loan Statements will come via DSAR--but I would be very suprised if they did not tally with the calculation sheets

So--dilemma on Loan 1 I suspect--

• discuss on here a bit with Bill & Wendy & Marshey--
• or accept
• or wait for Loan Statements

I've done the best I can PF--good luck--& especial thanks to Marshy & Bill


Turbo

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI and Court

Thank you TM, BILL, MARSHY and WENDY i am truly greatful for all the help you have all put in i think you are right TM but i will wait for the dsar info as they have cock up before and sent the first agreement on a second request ofter saying they did not have it so if the dsar info matches there offer ill accept PF

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI and Court

I see that Turbo has posted already. No problemo, as I would have suggested he do that. Well - here's what I WOULD have said to him, privately, anyway:-

I have stood and watched you two guys doing this stuff, and been amazed - you sure do spark off each other !!! I have to admit I just haven't been able to put the time and effort in lately, and the recent stuff going on here has made that so clear. I get to make a post now and then, and put my own feelings forward - but it is YOU guys who are doing the hard work here, bless you.

I chuck my two penn'orth in, as and when - but guys - when it comes to making a decision one way or the other - then you go for what you reckon is the best way. It's good that you check out my stuff, and I sure appreciate the respect you give it, but I similarly respect the sheer b100dy effort you guys are putting in.

Turbo - Marshy - you both have the primary vote on this. If you agree on a course, then I am happy that you have done so, having read my views. It's good.

Post up, Turbo. OK. Let's go for it, guys. I'm privileged to be with you.

Read more at: Pompeyfaith discussions - Page 2 - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI and Court

Thanks Bill your wisdom has been fantastic and as for your letter writting bl00dy excellent your the man anyways as i have made a request no point being hasty may aswell wait for that just in case there is a nugget in there PF