Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

[andrew1]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

Yes, it does pose the question:
Who should pay, in the case of a purported absolute assignment?

Did you continue to pay the PPI premiums after your initial claim was accepted?

Why couldn't you claim again, as with car insurance for example?
Presumably, the exclusion and limitation clauses prevented you from doing so:
you couldn't return to work as your illness had become long term and;
even if you could have returned to work, your second claim would not have been successful, due to preexisting condition(s).

How much remained owing, after your initial claim came to an end?

Most policies should clear the outstanding balance, at the time of the claim.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
The problem with these sort of policies is that the ppi payments are made monthly over 12 months, but the interest keeps accruing...

well I've just sent off a reply: Slightly shortened here saying:


This account was indeed sold by Bank to DCA. However, DCA have given up their rights to this account as stated in the attached documents therefore, any refunds made on this PPI are effectively my own and not the Debt Purchasing Company’s.

If I Keep it simple for now and see what they say rather than try and be technical and dig myself a hole, then I can pick up from there, but this whole PPI question of selling/assigning the whole debt and who pays is an interesting one. Thank you folks for giving me your opinions. I'll come back when they reply.

A1

[Angry Cat]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

What? - you think I should apply to Cabot for the refund?

They did buy the debt, rights and duties etc...haha - can you imagine? LOL

Does beg the question though doesn't it? who should pay?

Now one final question, I paid this loan, taken out in Apr 2001 for about 18 months before I got into trouble including the PPI payment and they sold it on to Cabot in 2006. After that I paid the odd bit here and there whenever I got chased by one dca or another up until 2006. The insurance actually paid out for 1 yr from Apr 2004 until March 2005 which is all they'd pay for under the policy despite me being ill for much longer than that (3 yrs) when my business died.

The balance when sold was £18k

That's as far as it got.

Now do I ask them for the full £6000 less the monies they paid out on the policy for that 1 yr (£404 a month x 12 = £4850) plus interest or what?

Would it be deemed that the full 6k had been paid or not given the fact I had not paid that much? - Would I be unjustly enriched in that case?

Yes, it does pose the question:
Who should pay, in the case of a purported absolute assignment?

Did you continue to pay the PPI premiums after your initial claim was accepted?

Why couldn't you claim again, as with car insurance for example?
Presumably, the exclusion and limitation clauses prevented you from doing so:
you couldn't return to work as your illness had become long term and;
even if you could have returned to work, your second claim would not have been successful, due to preexisting condition(s).

How much remained owing, after your initial claim came to an end?

Most policies should clear the outstanding balance, at the time of the claim.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
The problem with these sort of policies is that the ppi payments are made monthly over 12 months, but the interest keeps accruing...

[Fortinbras]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

From reading this they agreed not to take further action, not that the debt is extinguished, as such if push comes to shove they can still exercise their right of offset.

I don't think right of offset applies here. This is from the FOS website:

Certain conditions must be met before the firm can exercise its right of "set off".

• the account from which the firm transfers funds must be held by the customer who owes the firm money.
• the account from which the firm transfers the money – and the account from which the money would otherwise have come – must both be held with the same firm.
• the account from which the firm transfers funds – and the account from which the money would otherwise have come – must both be held in the same capacity by the customer concerned. So, for example, if Mrs C holds a savings account in her capacity as treasurer of a local society, the firm cannot take money from that account to pay Mrs C’s personal credit card bill that she normally pays from the current account she holds in a personal capacity.
• the debt must be due and payable. For example, if a customer misses making a loan payment, then (at least until it calls in the loan) the firm can take only the missed payment – not the balance of the loan.

banking: firms' right of

[di30]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

Obviously an automatically generated response!

Yes it looks like it and very little of it too. I just asked how long should others be waiting basically, even though mine had been with them before xmas (resolved), some were probably before and even after.

[andrew1]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

At the end of the day, if one requests repayment of mis-sold PPI from a DCA debt buyer.
The debt buyer will run screaming to the OC, they will not want to repay the monies owed!

DCA's cannot have their cake and eat it!

What? - you think I should apply to Cabot for the refund?

They did buy the debt, rights and duties etc...haha - can you imagine? LOL

Does beg the question though doesn't it? who should pay?

Now one final question, I paid this loan, taken out in Apr 2001 for about 18 months before I got into trouble including the PPI payment and they sold it on to Cabot in 2006. After that I paid the odd bit here and there whenever I got chased by one dca or another up until 2006. The insurance actually paid out for 1 yr from Apr 2004 until March 2005 which is all they'd pay for under the policy despite me being ill for much longer than that (3 yrs) when my business died.

The balance when sold was £18k

That's as far as it got.

Now do I ask them for the full £6000 less the monies they paid out on the policy for that 1 yr (£404 a month x 12 = £4850) plus interest or what?

Would it be deemed that the full 6k had been paid or not given the fact I had not paid that much? - Would I be unjustly enriched in that case?

[debtisbad]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

Speaking on behalf of others, I made contact with the CEO, and received a response in the box today.


Dear,

Thank you for your recent communication addressed to Mr Horta-Osório, our Chief Executive Officer. I’ve been asked to reply on his behalf. It is very important to us to ensure that our customers receive competent yet helpful and friendly advice, during any business dealings they may have with us and I am sorry to hear that you have had cause to voice your concerns with the Business.


Yours sincerely

A
Customer Relations Manager – Lloyds TSB Group Operations

Obviously an automatically generated response!

[Paul210]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

Well it never got to court and the solicitors acting for us managed to prepare a Witness Statement which the DCA's solcitors decided was not worth challenging, so they pulled out and agreed to pay my solicitors and counsel opinion costs to date (about 10-15k!).

I did however write to the DCA's solicitors and they said:

" We can confirm that xyz DCA and it's Servicing company wxy Ltd will take no further action, either legal or collections, in relation to ABC Bank loan account number 123456. The above claim has been dismissed by consent and a copy of the agreed order, signed by ourselves and your solicitors and sealed by the court is enclosed"

The Order is a Consent Order and states

" Upon the parties agreeing to the terms set out hereto

AND BY ORDER IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The Claimants claim is hereby dismissed.

2.The Defendants Counterclaim is hereby dismissed

3. The Claimant shall pay the defendants costs to be assessed if not agreed.

End of.

From reading this they agreed not to take further action, not that the debt is extinguished, as such if push comes to shove they can still exercise their right of offset.

Its probably worth chancing you hand and sending a copy of the sols letter confirming no action to the OC to see if they will take at face value and repay to you but if they stand their ground then legally their case holds more weight than yours im afraid.

Only way to get around would be to get the court to declare agreement void as you were originally trying to do however given the consent order I'm not even sure they would reopen the matter, plus theres the additional issue of costs, in the current climate surrounding CCA cases its highly unlikely you would get ATE cover meaning you could be looking at an expensive gamble if courts decide they wouldnt reopen.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

At the end of the day, if one requests repayment of mis-sold PPI from a DCA debt buyer.
The debt buyer will run screaming to the OC, they will not want to repay the monies owed!

DCA's cannot have their cake and eat it!

[Angry Cat]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

Unfortunately Andrew1, I think we are going to see more cases like yours cropping up in the not too far distant future.

IMHO, the OC should repay the monies to you.

What were the circumstance when the OC sold the debt to the debt buyer?

[skv123]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

I doubt the lender is aware of that legal action.

As such i would send them a copy and explain the DCA have given up all rights to collect on the debt and as such the refund must be sent to you.

It seems like it should be fairly straightforward based on what has been posted above.

[andrew1]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

Does the court order from previous proceedings state the debt is unenforceable or that the agreement is void and therefore no balance due?

Also what wording was used when they confirmed the debt was written off, did they concede that there was a nil balance or did they state they would not be pursuing further?

The answers to these will dictate the strength of your argument against them.

If court declared contract void or nil balance then there is no debt to the DCA therfore you should be pushing for all funds to come to you. Likewise either lender/DCA confirmed nil balance in writing.

If however the court simply declared unenforcable or the DCA/lender confirmed a balance remained but would not pursue further and would write it off then they can still argue the debt is due however that in light of court not ruling in their favour they abandonded collection attempts. This would not to my mind mean they could not offset any refund (such as ppi redress).

Well it never got to court and the solicitors acting for us managed to prepare a Witness Statement which the DCA's solcitors decided was not worth challenging, so they pulled out and agreed to pay my solicitors and counsel opinion costs to date (about 10-15k!).

I did however write to the DCA's solicitors and they said:

" We can confirm that xyz DCA and it's Servicing company wxy Ltd will take no further action, either legal or collections, in relation to ABC Bank loan account number 123456. The above claim has been dismissed by consent and a copy of the agreed order, signed by ourselves and your solicitors and sealed by the court is enclosed"

The Order is a Consent Order and states

" Upon the parties agreeing to the terms set out hereto

AND BY ORDER IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The Claimants claim is hereby dismissed.

2.The Defendants Counterclaim is hereby dismissed

3. The Claimant shall pay the defendants costs to be assessed if not agreed.

End of.

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

Come on lets be fair what about beautiful boys

uh oh! not another former member of the Cheadle Boy Scouts?!

[Paul210]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

Okidoki! - Here's a bit of a tongue twister on PPI I'd like to share, I'll start a thread but I thought this one worthy of posting on here first as it's a general issue, but I doubt totally uncommon.

Loan 13k
PPI 6k
Charges etc took it up to £21k +/-

Sold to DCA @ £18k +/- incl charges.

Claimed on PPI for 1yr @£ 400 pmth (we'll go into unsuitablity issues on thread, but hear me out)

DCA chased debt and issued summons. Claim thrown out as Multiple Agreement and they issued Summons in one name when joint account. (Guess who? !! LOL) Therefore Agreement unenforceable anyway from inception.

I always felt PPI Sold as condition so claimed against original lender for refund of PPI - it was 6k after all!!)

Lender wrote back with offer to repay, but and this is the sting...asking us to agree this:

" We understand that you will use part or all of the refund to repay any of the debt that was sold onto the 3rd party (the DCA) debt sale company"


Now, this issue is the DCA paid less than 10% of the debt to buy it although I respect they buy the rights to the whole debt (I'm thinking unjust enrichment) and what they pay is their business. However, they had to write-off the whole debt and confirmed such with me when they had the claim thrown out with costs. So all they have lost is their initial investment which should never have been paid in the first place as the debt had always, from inception, been unenforceable.

Had the dca continued, I would have to had paid them back in full which included the 6k for the PPI.

Now are they due this refund (if it comes) or me?

Does the court order from previous proceedings state the debt is unenforceable or that the agreement is void and therefore no balance due?

Also what wording was used when they confirmed the debt was written off, did they concede that there was a nil balance or did they state they would not be pursuing further?

The answers to these will dictate the strength of your argument against them.

If court declared contract void or nil balance then there is no debt to the DCA therfore you should be pushing for all funds to come to you. Likewise either lender/DCA confirmed nil balance in writing.

If however the court simply declared unenforcable or the DCA/lender confirmed a balance remained but would not pursue further and would write it off then they can still argue the debt is due however that in light of court not ruling in their favour they abandonded collection attempts. This would not to my mind mean they could not offset any refund (such as ppi redress).

[andrew1]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

Okidoki! - Here's a bit of a tongue twister on PPI I'd like to share, I'll start a thread but I thought this one worthy of posting on here first as it's a general issue, but I doubt totally uncommon.

Loan 13k
PPI 6k
Charges etc took it up to £21k +/-

Sold to DCA @ £18k +/- incl charges.

Claimed on PPI for 1yr @£ 400 pmth (we'll go into unsuitablity issues on thread, but hear me out)

DCA chased debt and issued summons. Claim thrown out as Multiple Agreement and they issued Summons in one name when joint account. (Guess who? !! LOL) Therefore Agreement unenforceable anyway from inception.

I always felt PPI Sold as condition so claimed against original lender for refund of PPI - it was 6k after all!!)

Lender wrote back with offer to repay, but and this is the sting...asking us to agree this:

" We understand that you will use part or all of the refund to repay any of the debt that was sold onto the 3rd party (the DCA) debt sale company"


Now, this issue is the DCA paid less than 10% of the debt to buy it although I respect they buy the rights to the whole debt (I'm thinking unjust enrichment) and what they pay is their business. However, they had to write-off the whole debt and confirmed such with me when they had the claim thrown out with costs. So all they have lost is their initial investment which should never have been paid in the first place as the debt had always, from inception, been unenforceable.

Had the dca continued, I would have to had paid them back in full which included the 6k for the PPI.

Now are they due this refund (if it comes) or me?

[di30]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

Speaking on behalf of others, I made contact with the CEO, and received a response in the box today.


Dear,

Thank you for your recent communication addressed to Mr Horta-Osório, our Chief Executive Officer. I’ve been asked to reply on his behalf. It is very important to us to ensure that our customers receive competent yet helpful and friendly advice, during any business dealings they may have with us and I am sorry to hear that you have had cause to voice your concerns with the Business.


Yours sincerely

A
Customer Relations Manager – Lloyds TSB Group Operations