PKea v GE Money PPI *** REFUNDED ***

[Paule]

Re: PKea v GE Money PPI

Leeds

[Paule]

Re: PKea v GE Money PPI

Right This is Won, but not over

BUT I want to challenge the fact they are giving the money to CL Finance
I believe this is Unfair enrichment as they are using funds that they obtained by misselling to pay a debt that is no longer in their control, if the debt was still with GE that woudl be fine.
The debt is assigned to CL finance and not managed by GE

I need to draft up a letter, does anyone have a bit about unfair enrichment that i can use
Thanks

The Letter

[Nattie]

Re: PKea v GE Money PPI *** WON ***

What does the explanatory FOS leaflet say?

[Paule]

Re: PKea v GE Money PPI *** WON ***

What does the explanatory FOS leaflet say?

Its actually a 12 page booklet 'your complaint and the ombudsman'

I will scan it all, if you think it will be useful

[Xena]

Re: PKea v GE Money PPI *** WON ***

Excellent PK ......

Hope Saffy will now get her buttom into gear lol

[Sapphire]

Re: PKea v GE Money PPI *** WON ***

Excellent PK ......

Hope Saffy will now get her buttom into gear lol

I fully intend to start back on at them asap (have a few things going on here at moment, thats demanding my attention). But, question how come they paid up PK and they are still ummmming and ahhhhing with mine? Did you actually get to phone them? If so what on earth did you say to them?

[Paule]

Re: PKea v GE Money PPI *** WON ***

how come they paid up PK and they are still ummmming and ahhhhing with mine?

I will post up my letter to them, for you

BUT I want to challenge the fact they are giving the money to CL Finance
I believe this is Unfair enrichment as they are using funds that they obtained by misselling to pay a debt that is no longer in their control, if the debt was still with GE that woudl be fine.
does anyone have a bit about unfair enrichment that i can use

[Paule]

Re: PKea v GE Money PPI *** REFUNDED ***

Unjust Enrichment examples

Unjust enrichment: is M&S's "storm in a teacake" nearing its end? 20/12/2007 THE BACKGROUND

HM Customs had classified teacakes as chocolate biscuits since 1973, but admitted their error in 1994. Until 1994 Marks and Spencer (“M&S”) had charged 17.5% VAT on its supplies of teacakes to its customers. After this M&S re-classified teacakes as zero-rated chocolate cakes, rather than standard-rated chocolate biscuits. M&S sought to reclaim the UK VAT it had overcharged to its customers on teacake sales until 1994.
HM Customs sought to block the reclaim using arguments time-barring and unjust enrichment. The European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) has already ruled that retrospective time-barring was not legal. Regarding unjust enrichment, the EU’s Advocate General released their Opinion this week, which is usually followed by the ECJ.

In essence, the concept of “unjust enrichment” is rooted (at least partly) in the notion that any VAT refund from HM Customs to M&S should be refunded by M&S to the customers who paid for the teacakes. Therefore (for example) M&S should be left in a “VAT neutral” position after passing on the VAT refund. But as this is not possible in practice, M&S should not receive the VAT refund, which will still leave M&S in the “VAT neutral” position.

THE CONCLUSION

The Advocate General’s Opinion states that, while EU laws do not in general preclude the principle of “unjust enrichment” for withholding reclaims of VAT unduly charged, M&S should not be subjected to the UK’s unjust enrichment rules as repayment traders are not subject to the same rules, which offends the principle of equal treatment.

We await the final judgments from the ECJ and the House of Lords, but other taxpayers who have had VAT reclaims blocked by HM Customs under “unjust enrichment” arguments now have cause for optimism.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...0728/m&s-1.htm

Although these arguments are based on VAT, I think I can use the same principles.

Any thoughts???

[Paule]

Re: PKea v GE Money PPI *** REFUNDED ***

Ok going to write a brief letter to them, so just jotting notes here

I do not accept that the refund be paid to CL Finance as I believe that this is unjust enrichment.
These premiums have already been paid to yourselves on the basis of your mis-selling.
Therefore they are not outstanding payments on the account and you have no right in reducing the balance owing to yourselves.
I require a cheque made payable to myself within 14 days or i will continue the matter through the courts or the FOS.

[Paule]

Re: PKea v GE Money PPI *** REFUNDED ***

Ok sent a letter off to them to say what they say.

Not going to persue it to court, as with the Judges out there, they will prob agree with givng the funds to a dca, any way if knocks a bit of the total debt

PKea

[Amethyst]

Re: PKea v GE Money PPI *** REFUNDED ***

I'd tend to agree with judge sorry babe I explained my reasoning to you before...but I still wish you luck and hope they see it your way.

[millymollymoo]

Re: PKea v GE Money PPI *** REFUNDED ***

Hi I know this is a old thread and glad you didn't have any problems with this lot.

Talk about them having Double Standards as regard to the PPI and whether they told you all the information. I am so annoyed with Santander/ GE money.In your case they quite clearly admitted in your letter that you may not have had an informed choice or been told all the important info to make that choice.

Yet In my O/H's case despite the PPI being crossed out on the credit agreement/ not living at the address when a supposed call 6 months later apparently happened where they added PPI to the account and it being a saturday and he workes every sat, (they made a big old mistake here using this day as they think most people are off)

They have the cheek to then say that despite having no record of the call that if this call took place they stated every bit of important information and he had a informed choice.

Omg such liers! Soz just so fed up with their lies.

Well done by the way