Do They Mean Me? Diary

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

Suspect its not something alot of people have looked at. Probably most are erstwhile debtors who once they realise they aint getting the whole lot are just happy to get out of debt.

Or perhaps this is why some get the full amount when they could set off like your friend. By setting off perhaps they could have left themselves wide open to have been doing someit very wrong.

Who knows.

I can't see where the setting-off makes any difference. If the PPI is mis-sold then, presumably, without it the debt wouldn't have gone into default so no DN should be issued. No DN = no grounds for a termination notice, so the creditor has terminated the account without reason. The party who breaks a contract is automatically at fault and forfeits any rights he has.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

I can't see where the setting-off makes any difference. If the PPI is mis-sold then, presumably, without it the debt wouldn't have gone into default so no DN should be issued. No DN = no grounds for a termination notice, so the creditor has terminated the account without reason. The party who breaks a contract is automatically at fault and forfeits any rights he has.

The account was in dispute over the CCA earlier. Has been said a faulty default should show actual arrears and if terminated on a faulty D.N. that then all to be repaid is the arrears the balance on the account they can say goodbye to?

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

The account was in dispute over the CCA earlier. Has been said a faulty default should show actual arrears and if terminated on a faulty D.N. that then all to be repaid is the arrears the balance on the account they can say goodbye to?

Thanks for that TC.

Glad my memory is still working a bit. It is over 30 years since the government paid for me to study contract law at uni.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

Thanks for that TC.

Glad my memory is still working a bit. It is over 30 years since the government paid for me to study contract law at uni.

Sure others will comment?

[ken100464]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

I can't see where the setting-off makes any difference. If the PPI is mis-sold then, presumably, without it the debt wouldn't have gone into default so no DN should be issued. No DN = no grounds for a termination notice, so the creditor has terminated the account without reason. The party who breaks a contract is automatically at fault and forfeits any rights he has.

Just playing devils advocate here. Wouldnt it depend on what the customer did just prior to the original default?.

Say you couldnt pay the full amount and went onto a temp arrangement. Say £1pcm. Unless the PPI wiped the balance or brought is so low as to the £1pcm is what you should have been paying then the default would have still happened. It isnt the default that is wrong its the amount. The contractual relationship has broken down. Bigger brains can argue rights and wrongs on that. Would the PPI refund be just that? A refund? Applied some time after the default date.

I doubt you could argue it was just the PPI that made the original default happen. Yes in reality it wont have helped I know. But say the consumer lost their job or whatever it dont matter they got into trouble and couldnt pay back the contractual payments.

However if the PPI refund puts you into credit at the time of the default or the amount you were paying is more than was required after the PPI was applied then the default and amount is wrong.

For me this is why its crucial the balance is re calculated with the PPI stripped out. You may find the balance at the time of the default was still owing. The 8% for a start could have been accruing for a number of years and the PPI win may not be as big at the time of the default as the end amount won.

The first case as a rational person I can see merits from both sides.

The second case I cant see any merit at all in the creditor maintaining that what they did was right.

Just my musings and not with any proof or guidelines to quote mind.

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

Just playing devils advocate here. Wouldnt it depend on what the customer did just prior to the original default?.

Say you couldnt pay the full amount and went onto a temp arrangement. Say £1pcm. Unless the PPI wiped the balance or brought is so low as to the £1pcm is what you should have been paying then the default would have still happened. It isnt the default that is wrong its the amount. The contractual relationship has broken down. Bigger brains can argue rights and wrongs on that. Would the PPI refund be just that? A refund? Applied some time after the default date.

I doubt you could argue it was just the PPI that made the original default happen. Yes in reality it wont have helped I know. But say the consumer lost their job or whatever it dont matter they got into trouble and couldnt pay back the contractual payments.

However if the PPI refund puts you into credit at the time of the default or the amount you were paying is more than was required after the PPI was applied then the default and amount is wrong.

For me this is why its crucial the balance is re calculated with the PPI stripped out. You may find the balance at the time of the default was still owing. The 8% for a start could have been accruing for a number of years and the PPI win may not be as big at the time of the default as the end amount won.

The first case as a rational person I can see merits from both sides.

The second case I cant see any merit at all in the creditor maintaining that what they did was right.

Just my musings and not with any proof or guidelines to quote mind.

Ken, you make some good points here. I suppose the actual circumstances would have a great bearing on this.

As an example, my friend (yes, really) had three loans in a consolidation string (1998, 2002 and 2005). All had PPI so the refund amount of £9000 (inc interest) was substantially more than the Default Notice amount (in 2006) which was £370. I calculate that £6000+ of the PPI refund related to the two previous loans which had been settled/consolidated.

Even if we ignore the interest element, the PPI from 1998 to 2006 was vastly more than the £370 default figure. By that reckoning she would have been about £3000 in credit when the DN was issued.

My thinking continues:
In 2006, due to their mistake, the bank had calculated a default of £370 when the account should have shown a credit of some £3000. This is proven by the subsequent PPI refund.
So the debtor had not defaulted at all when the DN was issued - at that point there was no breach of contract by anyone. The breach only occurred when the bank terminated the agreement.

This was a breach that the bank could have remedied but didn't.

As said, the party to breach a contract generally loses all rights under the contract and is liable to compensate the other party for their quantifiable losses.

In any case, the default notice should never have been issued.

It is all blue sky thinking but seems to more or less add up.

Tell me what you think and we can see if similar thinking would apply to your own case.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

In O.Hs case PPI was claimed on due to redundancy, and yest their Insurers did pay out (never on time) and short of actual amounts needed to cover repayments, the Insurers blamed MBNA and MBNA blamed the Insurers, and MBNA kept sending short fall letter via RMA every month to which the O.H. spoke to them and said the PPI should more than cover the repayments, she did pay or struggled to pay the difference out of Job seekers allowance, (No wonder I was struggling to keep us going and I was under Hardship situation after reduced hours at work due to Heart Attack = 48 - 52 hours a week to 16 Hours per week), also the Monthly amount on her account kept going up without use because MBNA was charging £65 + per month PPI charges which In my case on any PPI I had was covered whilst I was claiming albeit 1 month after heart attack, I did claim PPI back from HSBC later because the after event was not covered yet I was told all events on PPI added to a loan.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

If a refund more than compensates arrears, then any default amount is then wiped out and then some, off the balance, the whole scenario would start again
a dispute in place and if no payments made the procedure of time limits would kick in, not as MBNA seem to have done = a very short time matter of weeks after refund account put account up to be sold then 5 days later send a default notice albeit defective and then after 5 days move the account to selling area (during default period) and selling off a couple days later.

[ken100464]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

In that case I believe then no sane person could say the default was right.

In our own case we have won a PPI claim but dispute they have calculated it correctly.

Presently the balance when recalculated is about £300 in debit when it defaulted. However OH was paying £1pcm which was less than the minimum. She did this for 6 months and they defaulted her.

Therefore I dont see that they have actually done wrong. Its what happened on the account then and even if the figures are now wrong it still happened. So not really much point in getting upset about it yet.

However as we feel the award was too low and miscalculated if we win at FOS £300 or more then not only was the default amount wrong but the default couldnt have happened because they owed us.

Again am sure peeps will come along and say thats hard cheese as at the time before the PPI was removed you did default.

However I am working on the FSA guidelines which say as far as possible they should return you to where you would be if the PPI wasnt applied.

And if the balance is in credit how the hell can they default you.

Our next problem is our barstewards sold the account on just before the PPI paid out so now we have a DCA baying for us for an amount we dont actually believe is owed.

Think they were working on the idea we would use the PPI to settle with the DCA. Bit funny as we didnt and told the DCA that they will be the last account we pay anything to and if they didnt like it then we would relish a day in court. Lol DCA sorta lost its tongue and is now offering discounts. Whats also funny is the OC who had assigned in full this account to the DCA was aware we hadnt paid off the account. Bit of data sharing going on there when perhaps one would think maybe if they no longer have an interest in the account then maybe they shouldnt know my financial business.

Part of my request to FOS if they do award £300 or more is that the bank is made to repurchase the DCA's account (will be for peanuts as was sold for peanuts) and write the account off.

Couldnt make it up really.

Suspect it will take years as FOS minimum wage boy wont get his head round why its all wrong.

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

Just got around to looking properly into the PPI reclaim on the NatWest Credit Card. NatWest have refused the reclaim and it is now with the FOS, probably for about 12 months at least.

As previously said, the o/s balance is about £5100. By my calculations, the PPI reclaim is worth in excess of £16,000 as it goes back to 1998. I will know more precisely when (if) I get the 31 missing statements in my outstanding SAR.

Is this a legitimate reason to put the account into formal dispute? I know I can do so on the basis that the CCA recon provided lacks PTs but the PPI reclaim seems a heftier reason. Should I use this first as it has a potential 12 month 'life' while it is with the FOS.
That would let me keep the missing PTs in reserve in case they are needed.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

Could take 12 mths at least yes, but on the brightside it remains in dispute all the while the FOS is dealing with your claim.

They can and no doubt will carry on with the treats the co-op did with me for 2.5 years whilst a claim was with the FOS, however threats is all it is because no action can be taken and a judge would take a very dim view if they started legal action and thus you could throw it out on the grounds that the FOS is dealing with a claim/complaint.

So in sort just update here with any letters you get then file away for safe keeping.

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

Type of account: Credit Card
Date commenced:1998
Approx balance: £5100
Date last paid: Ongoing
Are you on arrangement: Was paying £22 pm by arrangement - now stopped
Status: Default (2006)
Account owner: NatWest

I am helping a friend in dealing with this and other debts. Her creditors are all now dealing directly with me.
Earlier this year I made a F&F offer on her behalf of £1300 which was refused but NatWest said they would accept £4100 (80%) in F&F.
She made a CCA request in October which generated a reconstructed agreement.
A PPI reclaim on this has been refused and is now with the FOS.
My hope is that I can get NatWest to accept a reasonable (as in low) F&F on this.

21-05-2012 F&F offer letter sent offering £1300.
29-05-2012 Refusal of F&F offer, but they will accept £4148.66.
27-09-2012 s.78 Consumer Credit Agreement request letter sent.
02-10-12. PPI claim sent.
02-10-12. SAR sent.
13-10-12 Letter dated 08-10-12 confirming PPI claim received
13-11-12 PPI claim refused
30-11-12 PPI claim referred to FOS
23-10-12 Letter sent as follow-up to not receiving the CCA
30-10-12 Reconstituted CCA arrived (letter dated 17-10-12)
14-01-13 (Received 22-01-03) Letter saying payment arrangement is due for review.
Niddy says the CCA is as it lacks prescribed terms.
PPI claim is now with the FOS.
Payments now stopped as the PPI claim is likely to be bigger than the account balance.

SAR information just received - not much new there. Statements back to 2006 so it didn't provide the missing statements from 2003-2006.

The only new thing to come to light is a short note saying, 'We were unable to obtain a copy of the original application form'.
It makes me wonder just how the hell they were able to reconstitute a TRUE copy of the agreement from 1998 without the original application form.

So it looks like this one is just a sit-tight until the FOS make their decision. If the claim is upheld it should clear the debt, if not we will be a year nearer it being SB.

We know NatWest CC statements have been computer produced since the late 1990s so I have to assume only sending them for the last six years is a bit of gamesmanship on their part.

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

Type of account: Credit Card
Date commenced:1998
Approx balance: almost £5000
Date last paid: Dec 2012
Are you on arrangement: Was paying £22 pm by arrangement - now stopped
Status: Default (2006) so gone from CRA files.
Account owner: NatWest

I am helping a friend in dealing with this and other debts. Her creditors are all now dealing directly with me.
Earlier this year I made a F&F offer on her behalf of £1300 which was refused but NatWest said they would accept £4100 (80%) in F&F.
She made a CCA request in October which generated a reconstructed agreement.
A PPI reclaim on this has been refused and is now with the FOS.
My hope is that I can get NatWest to accept a reasonable (as in low) F&F on this.

21-05-2012 F&F offer letter sent offering £1300.
29-05-2012 Refusal of F&F offer, but they will accept £4148.66.
27-09-2012 s.78 Consumer Credit Agreement request letter sent.
02-10-12. PPI claim sent.
02-10-12. SAR sent.
13-10-12 Letter dated 08-10-12 confirming PPI claim received
13-11-12 PPI claim refused
30-11-12 PPI claim referred to FOS
23-10-12 Letter sent as follow-up to not receiving the CCA
30-10-12 Reconstituted CCA arrived (letter dated 17-10-12)
14-01-13 (Received 22-01-03) Letter saying payment arrangement is due for review.
Niddy says the CCA is as it lacks prescribed terms.
PPI claim is now with the FOS.
Payments now stopped as the PPI claim is likely to be bigger than the account balance.
SAR information just received - with statements back to 2006 so it didn't provide the missing statements from 2003-2006. It included a short note saying, 'We were unable to obtain a copy of the original application form'.

14-01-13. NW letter - please contact us.
08-04-13. NW letter - they are disappointed - failed to comply with agreement.
24-04-13. NW letter - still disappointed - will pass to external DCA.
17-05-13. Letter from Triton Credit Services. Payment demand for full amount of £5000ish.

Update:
I have treated them with the contempt they deserve and not sent anything to them since October so we are now a bit nearer SB. NatWest have now passed this to their in-house pets, Triton.

Is now the time to send the T&Cs received letter (as Niddy suggested) or do I string them along a bit longer?

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

Type of account: Credit Card
Date commenced:2002
Approx balance: £1400
Date last paid: 2006
Are you on arrangement: Was paying £8 pm now paying FA from Feb 2013
Status: Default (2006) - gone from CRA files
Account owner: Tesco Bank (RBS)

Again, this is for the same friend as my other posts.
21-05-12. Sent F&F offer of £350.
11-06-12. Received letter refusing £350 in F&F.
27-09-12. Sent CCA request. 02-10-12.
17-10-12. Copy of microfiche 'agreement' received.
24-01-13. Niddy says agreement is as it lacks PTs
01-02-13. Stopped making payments - that'll make em wish they had accepted the F&F offer.
05-03-13. Tesco letter - we haven't received your payment. Ignored.

Update: Nothing to update really. I have not sent the Missing PTs letter yet as they seem content to leave us alone.

[Pixie]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

Update:
I have treated them with the contempt they deserve and not sent anything to them since October so we are now a bit nearer SB. NatWest have now passed this to their in-house pets, Triton.

Is now the time to send the T&Cs received letter (as Niddy suggested) or do I string them along a bit longer?

The time to have sent that letter was when Niddy told you to send it.

You are taking a risk completely ignoring everything they send you...Paul says a paper trail helps your defence should they decide to take you to court.

What are you hoping to achieve by "stringing them along"?

I would send Account Sold whilst in Dispute - allaboutDEBT UK to Triton even though you know they're the in-house pet dca.