• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Calamity Jane v GE Money

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Calamity Jane v GE Money

    In 2003 we took out 2 loans with GE Money(First National at the time) for replacement windows and door.
    The loans included ppi's in my husbands name. A further PPI was set up in respect of the first loan in my name.
    My husband has been off work for 16 years with severe depression and I have not worked since our eldest was born in 1983.
    In April I wrote to GE Money stating that I regarded that the ppi in my name had been mis-sold(didn't notice the ones for my husband included in the loans ), and that they had 14 days to refund all monies paid in respect of the ppi. They advised me that I had requested this and that as it was set up after the loan it had not been mis-sold. Now I vaguely remember getting a phone call about this but can't remember the exact details.
    In May I sent a SAR requesting transcripts and recordings of telephone conversations for all 3 accounts.
    To date all I have received are the statements.
    I again wrote to GE Money on the 31st October stating that I regarded all 3 ppi's as being mis-sold and requested refunds within 14 days. They didn't receive the letter until 7th November and said they would reply to our complaint within 28 days.
    I have now received their reply which states that:-
    The 2 ppi's in my husbands name were sold by the replacement window Co and therefore the quality of the sale should be taken up with them. (Surely they are responsible as they sent out the agreements for signature)
    They have now confirmed that they rang me in respect of the ppi in my name and that the agreement was subsequently sent to me to read and that I had to option not to sign.
    There was £29.71 outstanding on this ppi which they have now closed.

    Now I know that the FSA guidelines/rules only apply to those taken out after January 2005, so writing to the FOS is not an option, but I still feel that none of these ppi's were suitable for us. (possibly mine for life cover)
    The ppi's for my husband covered him for disability and hospitalization cover,
    the ppi for me covered life and hospitalization cover
    Apart from making a complaint to ICO in respect of the transcripts/telephone conversations not being sent, I'm not sure how to proceed with this.
    Any advice would be appreciated.

  • #2
    Re: Calamity Jane v GE Money

    Hi,
    Have you read the thread by PKea about PPI with these people it may help you a little.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Calamity Jane v GE Money

      Right time to sort this out.
      I'm going to write to GE Money again sending a LBA for late payment charges of £210.00.
      I will also advise them they I will be pursuing the claim for PPI'S through the courts
      (once I've got the necessary information together).

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Calamity Jane v GE Money

        Letter going off to GE Money Thursday. I also have to sort out about how the part settlement payments made in 2004 were applied and subsequent default notice queries but I'll do this in a separate letter later.

        Any suggested alterations would be appreciated.

        Dear Sir/Madam,


        Account Numbers – xx xxx xxx xxx, xx xxx xxx xxx & xxx xxx xxx xxx

        Further to my letter of 29th October, your subsequent reply of 4th December.

        Frankly, I am disappointed that you are still not prepared to accept responsibility for the miss-selling of the above payment protection policies. I would emphasise the following facts for you to consider;

        1 - Your suggestion that we should contact Xxxxxx is incomprehensible due to the fact that the credit agreements were forwarded to yourselves for approval. This therefore makes you responsible for the miss-selling of the aforementioned policies.

        2 - Neither my husband nor I were employed and therefore the policies were not appropriate for our circumstances

        3 - The Financial Ombudsman recently reported that 80% of complaints received in respect of miss-sold payment protection policies have been upheld.

        However, as you still seem unable to accept that the above payment protection policies were miss-sold, you leave us no option but to pursue this matter through the small claims court.
        I enclose schedules showing the payments we shall be claiming.

        While checking the statements sent to us, I also noticed that penalty charges have been applied to our accounts.
        Further to recent publicity, and the Office of Fair Tradings report dated 5th April 2006, I am now aware that the penalty charges you applied to our accounts are unlawful. These charges have been levied on our accounts following breaches of contract by us, returned direct debits for example. If you contest these are penalty charges, please supply me with a copy of the terms and conditions from the time our accounts were opened. As disproportionate penalty charges, I also request that you provide me with a full breakdown of the costs you have incurred as a result of our breaches, in order to show the level of charge reflects your actual losses.


        I calculate that you have added £210.00 onto our accounts between 29th August 2003 and 1st July 2004. I enclose a schedule of the charges together with statutory interest of 8% which we are claiming.
        I will give you 14 days to reply to me accepting, unconditionally, my request in principle and letting me know a date by which we will receive a refund.
        If you do not respond, or you do not respond positively, within this time period, I shall send you a letter before action giving you a further 14 days in which to reflect. I believe that these targets are more than sufficient for a large company such as yours with dedicated staff and departments. If you do not respond to my second letter within 14 days, I shall commence a County Court claim against you.





        Yours Faithfully,

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Calamity Jane v GE Money

          I wasn't happy with the letter so I didn't send it. I've now altered it to include questions I have about cheques we sent off in Feb 2004 as part settlement(was supposed to be full settlement but by time the further advance came through there wasn't enough to cover the outstanding amounts)and subsequent defaults.

          Ge money consumer lending limited,
          53-60 College Road,
          Harrow,
          Middlesex,
          HA1 1FB



          4th March 2008


          Dear Sir/Madam,


          Account Numbers – xx xxx xxx xxx, xx xxx xxx xxx & xxx xxx xxx xxx

          Payment protection Policies

          Further to my letter of 29th October and your subsequent reply of 4th December.

          Frankly, I am disappointed that you are still not prepared to accept responsibility for the miss-selling of the above payment protection policies. I would emphasise the following facts for you to consider;

          1 - Your suggestion that we should contact xxxxxx xxxxxxx is incomprehensible due to the fact that the credit agreements were forwarded to yourselves for approval. This therefore makes you responsible for the miss-selling of the aforementioned policies.

          2 - Neither my Husband nor I were employed and therefore the policies were not appropriate for our circumstances

          3 - The financial ombudsman recently reported that 80% of complaints received in respect of miss-sold payment protection policies have been upheld.

          However, as you still seem unable to accept that the above payment protection policies were miss-sold, you leave us no option but to pursue this matter through the small claims court.
          I enclose schedules showing the payments we shall be claiming.

          Late Payment Fees

          While checking the statements sent to us, I also noticed that penalty charges have been applied to our accounts.


          Further to recent publicity, and the Office of Fair Trading report dated 5th April 2006, I am now aware that the penalty charges you applied to our accounts are unlawful. These charges have been levied on our accounts following breaches of contract by us, returned direct debits for example. If you contest these are penalty charges, please supply me with a copy of the terms and conditions from the time our accounts were opened. As disproportionate penalty charges, I also request that you provide me with a full breakdown of the costs you have incurred as a result of our breaches, in order to show the level of charge reflects your actual losses.


          I calculate that you have added £210.00 onto our accounts between 29th august 2003 and 1st July 2004. I enclose a schedule of the charges together with statutory interest of 8% which we are claiming.
          I will give you 14 days to reply to me accepting, unconditionally, my request in principle and letting me know a date by which we will receive a refund.
          If you do not respond, or you do not respond positively, within this time period, I shall
          send you a letter before action giving you a further 14 days in which to reflect. I believe that these targets are more than sufficient for a large company such as yours with dedicated staff and departments. If you do not respond to my second letter within 14 days, I shall commence a county court claim against you.

          Part Settlement Payments & Default Charges

          I would also like clarification on the following,

          Condition 5(1) of the agreements state that “the customer may make payments in addition to the monthly repayment instalments. Unless the customer specifies how any additional payment is to be treated any such payments shall be subject to FNB’S rights to credit payments to interest or capital as detailed in condition 4”

          Condition 7(1) FNB has the right to change either or both of
          (a) The amount of the monthly repayments (shown at letter I on the front of this agreement)
          (b) The number of monthly payments (shown at letter H on the front of this agreement)
          But FNB can only do this if:
          (ii) The customer repays capital in accordance with condition 5 (1) of this agreement:

          Condition 7(2) if FNB does make any of these changes, the customer will be notified in writing. The only reason the repayment period may be shortened by FNB is because the interest rate is reduced or additional payments have been made. Interest will be charged until the balance is fully repaid.


          On 9th February 2004 we made payments of £4500.00(xxx xxx xxx xxx), £450.00(xxx xxx xxx xxx) & £2500.00(xxx xxx xxx xxx) as part settlement of the accounts.

          We were neither advised of a change in the amount or number of monthly payments applicable to these payments. However on xx/xx/2005 we were advised that the payment due on xx/xx/2005for account nos. xxx/xxx/xxx/xxx & xxx/xxx/xxx/xxx were overdue and on xx/xx/2005 the payment due on xx/xx/2005 for account no. xxx/xxx/xxx/xxx was overdue.

          As the loan was originally for a period of 10 years, I fail to see how we could have defaulted on payments when the original terms do not end until March 2013( xxx/xxx/xxx/xxx) & August 2013 (xxx/xxx/xxx/xxx) respectively.

          Therefore please advise the following:

          (1)How the additional payments were applied,
          (2)Why you did not comply with Condition 7(2)
          (3)Why the amount of premiums or number of payments were not reduced
          (4)Why we suddenly received notice of payments being overdue in August/October 2005
          (5)Why default notices, resulting in a default charge, were issued.


          I await your reply to the above.


          Yours Faithfully,



          Any thoughts or suggested amendments would be appreciated

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Calamity Jane v GE Money

            PPI Isn`t my strong point CJ,

            so here is a :bump:
            Any opinions I give are my own. Any advice I give is without liability. If you are unsure, please seek qualified legal advice.

            IF WE HAVE HELPED YOU PLEASE CONSIDER UPGRADING TO VIP - click here

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Calamity Jane v GE Money

              CJ

              If you haven't sent this yet, you might like to consider splitting the claim into penalties and PPI. If you submit a joint claim and the court stays the penalty part, then the PPI claim will also be held up. If you split off all the penalties, then you can proceed with the rest of the claim regardless.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Calamity Jane v GE Money

                Thanks for the input Kafka.

                I haven't sent the letter yet as I'm still making adjustments and need to recheck a few figures and dates.
                The plan is to send the letter then within a couple of weeks submit a claim for the ppi's {It's been a year since I first queried these with them}. For the charges after 2 weeks I will send the lba and if no joy issue a separate claim.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Calamity Jane v GE Money

                  Final alterations(in blue)made. Letter being sent recorded delivery on Monday.



                  GE Money Consumer Lending Limited,

                  53-60 College Road
                  ,
                  Harrow,
                  Middlesex,
                  HA1 1FB







                  31st March 2008


                  Dear Sir/Madam,



                  Account Numbers – xx xxx xxx xxx, xx xxx xxx xxx & xxx xxx xxx xxx

                  Payment protection Policies

                  Further to my letter of 29th October and your subsequent reply of 4th December.

                  Frankly, I am disappointed that you are still not prepared to accept responsibility for the mis-selling of the above payment protection policies.
                  Your suggestion that we should contact xxxxxx xxxxxxx is incomprehensible due to the fact that the credit agreements were forwarded to yourselves for approval. This therefore makes you responsible for the mis-selling of the aforementioned policies.

                  I would emphasise the following facts for you to consider;

                  1
                  - You have admitted in your letter that I did not contact you requesting the payment protection policy for myself, and that you in fact contacted me,

                  2
                  - Neither my Husband nor I were employed and therefore the policies were not appropriate for our circumstances

                  3
                  - The financial ombudsman recently reported that 80% of complaints received in respect of mis-sold payment protection policies have been upheld. However, as you still seem unable to accept that the above payment protection policies were mis-sold, you leave us no option but to pursue this matter through the small claims court. I enclose schedules showing the payments we shall be claiming.

                  Late Payment Fees

                  While checking the statements sent to us, I also noticed that penalty charges have been applied to our accounts.

                  Further to recent publicity, and the Office of Fair Trading report dated 5th April 2006, I am now aware that the penalty charges you applied to our accounts are unlawful. These charges have been levied on our accounts following breaches of contract by us, returned direct debits for example. If you contest these are penalty charges, please supply me with a copy of the terms and conditions from the time our accounts were opened. As disproportionate penalty charges, I also request that you provide me with a full breakdown of the costs you have incurred as a result of our breaches, in order to show the level of charge reflects your actual losses.

                  I calculate that you have added £210.00 onto our accounts between 29th august 2003 and 2nd March 2006. I enclose a schedule of the charges together with statutory interest of 8% which we are claiming. I will give you 14 days to reply to me accepting, unconditionally, my request in principle and letting me know a date by which we will receive a refund.
                  If you do not respond, or you do not respond positively, within this time period, I shall
                  send you a letter before action giving you a further 14 days in which to reflect. I believe that these targets are more than sufficient for a large company such as yours with dedicated staff and departments. If you do not respond to my second letter within 14 days, I shall commence a county court claim against you.

                  Part Settlement Payments & Default Charges

                  I would also like clarification on the following,

                  Condition 5(1) of the agreements state that “the customer may make payments in addition to the monthly repayment instalments. Unless the customer specifies how any additional payment is to be treated any such payments shall be subject to FNB’S rights to credit payments to interest or capital as detailed in condition 4”

                  Condition 7(1) FNB has the right to change either or both of

                  (a) The amount of the monthly repayments (shown at letter I on the front of this agreement)

                  (b) The number of monthly payments (shown at letter H on the front of this agreement)
                  But FNB can only do this if:
                  (ii) The customer repays capital in accordance with condition 5 (1) of this agreement:

                  Condition 7(2) if FNB does make any of these changes, the customer will be notified in writing. The only reason the repayment period may be shortened by FNB is because the interest rate is reduced or additional payments have been made. Interest will be charged until the balance is fully repaid.

                  On 9th February 2004 we made payments of £5000.00(xxx xxx xxx xxx), £400.00(xxx xxx xxx xxx) & £2500.00(xxx xxx xxx xxx) as part settlement of the accounts. We were neither advised of a change in the amount or number of monthly payments applicable to these payments. However in June2005 we were advised that the payments of £93.51 for account nos.xx xxx xxx xxx & xx xxx xxx xxxand £47.91 for account no. xx xxx xxx xxx were overdue. As the loan was originally for a period of 10 years, I fail to see how we could have defaulted on payments when the original terms do not end until March 2013( xxx/xxx/xxx/xxx) & August 2013 (xxx/xxx/xxx/xxx) respectively.

                  Therefore please advise the following:

                  (1)
                  How the additional payments were applied,
                  (2)
                  Why you did not comply with Condition 7(2)
                  (3)Why the amount of premiums or number of payments were not reduced
                  (4)
                  Why we suddenly received notice of payments being overdue in August/October 2005
                  (5)Why default notices, resulting in a default charge, were issued. I await your reply to the above.


                  Yours Faithfully,

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Calamity Jane v GE Money

                    Letter sent recorded Delivery today

                    --------------------------- -------------------------

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Calamity Jane v GE Money

                      Received reply from GE Money on Wednesday saying thy would deal with my complaint within the next 4 weeks.:yawn:
                      Lba for charges being sent recorded tomorrow.

                      I now preparing particulars of claim for the ppi's. 2 of the accounts are in my husbands name and 1 is in my name can I put them all in 1 claim or do I have to do them as 2 separate claims?:noidea: (we both signed all 3 cca's)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Calamity Jane v GE Money

                        I think it is advised to keep all claims separate CL even the 2 for your OH Enaid x

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Calamity Jane v GE Money

                          Right time to get this sorted. I've had 2 letters back from GE Money.

                          1st letter stating no way are they refunding the ppi's. So to court we go (this should be fun 3 separate poc's)

                          2nd letter saying no to refund of unlawful charges. I have to send lba for this so I'm going to send it at same time as I send the claims to court so they can see I'm serious. Am also considering claiming compound interest instead of statutory interest.
                          will post letters and poc details later for any thoughts or advice.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Calamity Jane v GE Money

                            Right this is what I've managed to come up with so far. I need to make a few alterations but I've posted it in case anyone can think of anything I've missed.


                            1 On
                            29th November 2002 Mr Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx( The Claimant ) & his wife, Mrs Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxx took out a loan with GE Money Consumer Lending Ltd – Formerly First National Bank Plc (The Defendant) to cover the cost of replacement widows supplied by Zenith Windows (The Supplier)

                            2. The loan application, which included payment protection cover for the Claimant was completed and signed in the presence of the replacement windows salesman.

                            The signed credit agreement was then forwarded to the Defendant for authorisation and signature.

                            3.
                            The Claimant contends that:

                            a) The Claimant did not request the insurance when the application was processed but that the Payment Protection Policy was pre-selected by the salesman.

                            i) The Insurance imposed upon the Claimant were neither defined nor explained and were not "optional" as laid out in the said agreement.
                            ii) The Insurance was mis-sold, as the Claimant was on long term incapacity at the time and thus the circumstances invalidate the cover should the Claimant have ever needed to Claim.

                            b) The Claimant contends that the Defendant fraudulently passed incorrect details to the insurer to obtain these same Insurances from the insurer. The Claimant believes this grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing.

                            c)The Claimant contends that that Insurers are under an obligation to ensure the policy they are selling is appropriate to that customer and contends the Defendant has not fulfilled this requirement. The Claimant also contends that the Defendant never once attempted to ascertain the Claimants’ position to assess whether such as product was suitable. If any assessment had taken place it should have been considered wholly unnecessary and un-worthwhile.


                            d) If the Court finds that incorrect details were not passed as a result of fraudulent behaviour then the Claimant contends that incorrect details were passed to the insurer through the Defendants’ mistake as to facts.

                            e) The Claimant further contends that if the Insurance was applied correctly, that the Agreement was not executed in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974;
                            i)As the Insurance was in fact a charge for credit on the Conditional Sale Agreement, it could not also be part of the credit on the additional insurances agreement as under section 9 (4) Consumer Credit Act credit charges cannot be treated as credit even where time is given for their payments
                            ii) If the Insurance was not a charge for credit in respect of the Conditional Sale Agreement, as it was compulsory, it was a charge for credit on the additional insurances and under section 9 (4) Consumer Credit Act credit charges cannot be treated as credit
                            iii) For the reasons stated in either (i) or (ii) above, the agreement for additional insurances failed to state the correct amount of credit and did not comply with paragraph 2, schedule 6, which requires that regulated agreements contain as a prescribed term stating the correct amount of credit
                            IV) The agreement for additional insurances was therefore improperly executed under section 61 (1) (a) of the Consumer Credit Act.

                            4. The Office of Fair Trading states that “Payment Protection Insurance protects borrowers’ ability to maintain repayments and should help them avoid getting into debt should they be un-able to keep up their repayments due to accident, sickness or un-employment.” The Claimant contends that the Payment Protection Insurance sold in relation to the Agreement was never capable of meeting those requirements, and that the policy was therefore missold.

                            Under Section 75 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. A Creditor is jointly liable for misrepresentations by the supplier and therefore the Claimant contends that the Defendant is liable for the actions of the salesman even though he was employed by Zenith Windows.

                            Accordingly The Claimant claims,
                            a) full refund of all monies paid in respect of the Payment Protection Insurance totalling £586.14
                            b)Statutory interest at a rate of 8% totalling £194.90

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Calamity Jane v GE Money

                              I've made a few adjustments. Anyone got any views on this please?

                              1 On 29th November 2002 Mr Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx( The Claimant ) & his wife, Mrs Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxx took out a loan with GE Money Consumer Lending Ltd – Formerly First National Bank Plc (The Defendant) to cover the cost of replacement widows supplied by Zenith Windows (The Supplier) Account No. xxxx xxx xxx xxx.

                              2. The loan application, which included payment protection cover for the Claimant was completed and signed in the presence of the replacement windows salesman.

                              The signed credit agreement was then forwarded to the Defendant for authorisation and signature.

                              3.
                              The Claimant contends that:

                              a) The Claimant did not request the insurance when the application was processed but that the Payment Protection Policy was pre-selected by the salesman.

                              i) The Insurance imposed upon the Claimant were neither defined nor explained and were not "optional" as laid out in the said agreement.
                              ii) The Insurance was mis-sold, as the Claimant was on long term incapacity at the time and thus the circumstances invalidate the cover should the Claimant have ever needed to Claim.

                              b) The Claimant contends that the Defendant fraudulently passed incorrect details to the insurer to obtain these same Insurances from the insurer. The Claimant believes this grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing.

                              c)The Claimant contends that that Insurers are under an obligation to ensure the policy they are selling is appropriate to that customer and contends the Defendant has not fulfilled this requirement. The Claimant also contends that the Defendant never once attempted to ascertain the Claimants’ position to assess whether such as product was suitable. If any assessment had taken place it should have been considered wholly unnecessary and un-worthwhile.


                              d) If the Court finds that incorrect details were not passed as a result of fraudulent behaviour then the Claimant contends that incorrect details were passed to the insurer through the Defendants’ mistake as to facts.

                              e) The Claimant further contends that if the Insurance was applied correctly, that the Agreement was not executed in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974;
                              i)As the Insurance was in fact a charge for credit on the Conditional Sale Agreement, it could not also be part of the credit on the additional insurances agreement as under section 9 (4) Consumer Credit Act credit charges cannot be treated as credit even where time is given for their payments
                              ii) If the Insurance was not a charge for credit in respect of the Conditional Sale Agreement, as it was compulsory, it was a charge for credit on the additional insurances and under section 9 (4) Consumer Credit Act credit charges cannot be treated as credit
                              iii) For the reasons stated in either (i) or (ii) above, the agreement for additional insurances failed to state the correct amount of credit and did not comply with paragraph 2, schedule 6, which requires that regulated agreements contain as a prescribed term stating the correct amount of credit
                              IV) The agreement for additional insurances was therefore improperly executed under section 61 (1) (a) of the Consumer Credit Act.

                              4. The Office of Fair Trading states that “Payment Protection Insurance protects borrowers’ ability to maintain repayments and should help them avoid getting into debt should they be un-able to keep up their repayments due to accident, sickness or un-employment.” The Claimant contends that the Payment Protection Insurance sold in relation to the Agreement was never capable of meeting those requirements, and that the policy was therefore missold.

                              Under Section 75 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. A Creditor is jointly liable for misrepresentations by the supplier and therefore the Claimant contends that the Defendant is liable for the actions of the salesman even though he was employed by Zenith windows.

                              Accordingly The Claimant claims,
                              a) full refund of all monies paid in respect of the Payment Protection Insurance totalling £586.14
                              b)Statutory interest at a rate of 8% totalling £194.90
                              and then continuing at the same rate from (date issued) to the date of judgement or earlier settlement at a rate of £0.13 a day.
                              Last edited by calamity jane; 20th May 2008, 12:54:PM.

                              Comment

                              View our Terms and Conditions

                              LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                              If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                              If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                              Working...
                              X