I probably can - I used to work for them and had a CAP myself. If you can post a couple up, (removing personal info first) then I'll see what I can do.

Hi Rhyl40 Charging Orders aren't just issued by solicitors - solicitors can only apply to court to obtain one, usually if the defendant fails to comply with an order of the court. To get the charging order, Restons would have to go back to court, show that you have not paid as per the court order and ask for a charge to be placed on your property. If you have PPI and/or other disputed charges, you can ask the court to allow time for these issues to be resolved first. You should always turn up at court to put your case. You are not expected to be a legal expert nor are you expected to cross examine anyone as they do in the movies. Going to court can seem intimidating, but it really isn't. This is a civil dispute - you are not being accused of any crime! Oncebitten is taking the best approach in my opinion - you might want to follow her example.

If you refer it to the FOS, there are a number of reasons why the firm can request the FOS to reject it. If they issued a final response to you in 2008 and you didn't refer to the FOS within 6 months of that letter, then the FOS can only look at it with the consent of Ford Direct (which they'll never give). The selling of general insurance (PPI falls under this) wasn't regulated by the FSA until 14th January 2005. If your policy was sold 9 years before that in 1996 then this will certainly not be a regulated activity (neither the FOS or the FSA existed in 1996). Unless Ford Direct was a member of the ABI or GISC, I don't think the FOS can look at it. I don't know much about the Limitation Act, but surely there has to be a line somewhere about when you reasonably ought to have been aware of a complaint (I don't mean the 6 yr rule - I mean how do you define when you should have become aware of the grounds for complaint?). This policy was sold some 14 years ago - if this went to court, wouldn't the defendant argue that the plaintiff ought to have been aware of his/her complaint more than 6 years ago? Edit: Forgot to mention - it's unlikely Ford Credit will have retained the details of the sale from 1996. There is no obligation for them to keep this information for such a long period of time (unless the account is still open?).

I can chip in a little here: The Personal Loan Plus (PLP) was nearly identical to a credit card agreement. It had a credit limit and in place of a Visa or Mastercard, you had a cheque book. Interest was calculated daily and added to the balance monthly. If you paid by Direct Debit and weren't in arrears, you received a discount on the interest (the "Premier" rate). The PPI was also calculated monthly on the outstanding balance and to be fair, was nearly always cheaper than credit card PPI (it used to be 55p per £100 for single life, accident, sickness and unemployment). Just like a credit card, if you only pay the minimum payment the debt goes down by a tiny amount each month. Exactly how long ago were your loans and policies sold?

One small problem might be the date when the policy was sold - 1996. This is long before regulation be the FSA (which didn't even exist then). Also, FOS rules mean they can't look at complaints where the event complained about is over 6 years old (DISP 2.8.2R) with the exception of mortgage endowments where the date is based on the first warning letter. The other option is legal action, but this may be limited by the Limitation Act - I'm not a solicitor so I'd suggest you get professional help before going down the legal route.

Make a formal complaint to the insurer for their behaviour and non-disclosure of their "evidence". They should be seeking to resolve this without court action and so should present you with the evidence and allow you to rebut it or admit liability. Going to court should be seen as the last resort. Once you've made the complaint, they have 8 weeks to provide a final response. If they issue the response or even if they fail to do so, the FOS can then get involved. Don't fret about court action - they are there to decide what's fair in law and from my own experience, that is what has happened. Don't be afraid of the Courts! When faced with legal action, you should get professional advice (I'm not a solicitor).

FOS rules (DISP in the FSA Handbook) state: DISP 2.8.2R: 1, 2The Ombudsman cannot consider a complaint if the complainant refers it to the Financial Ombudsman Service: (1) more than six months after the date on which the respondent sent the complainant its final response; or (2) more than: (a) six years after the event complained of; or (if later) (b) three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint; FSA Handbook - Full Handbook DISP 2.8 I believe the Limitations Act is for cases brought before the Courts?

Anyone selling you a policy should be take account of your existing provisions when giving advice. If they failed to ask you what existing policies you had or what benefits you received from your employer in the event of accident and sickness, then they have not obtain sufficient information on which to give you advice. Sounds like you do have a case for them to answer.

Be aware though that if you plan to use the FOS, you must bring the complaint within 6 years of the date of the event complained about (i.e. the date they sold you the policy). They also may not keep information for more than 6 years either.

Sorry for the delay. This is what's happened: You took a loan for £10,000. Of that, £8,140.13 was received by you. £1,324.87 was used to pay off existing credit. That leaves £535.00 unaccounted for. I'll come back to this in a minute. The PPI premium is calculated on the full £10,000 and added to your loan. The premium was £938.13 meaning your total loan was £10,938.13. Interest is then calculated on £10,938.13 over the full term of the loan. One important thing to point out is that missing £535.00. I suspect this is likely to be your Critical Illness Cover policy. This is totally separate to the PPI. Critical Illness Cover normally pays out a lump sum in the event of a serious illness (certain cancers, heart attack, stroke etc). You'll need to check your policy documents to see what you're covered for. Now, in order to sell you this policy, HFC should have followed the same process to sell you PPI and establish that you had a need for the policy and also to make sure it was suitable for your needs. The FSA took over regulation of general insurance on 15th January 2005, so in selling this policy HFC must comply with the regulations and be able to demonstrate that they did so. The documents you have posted are not your legal agreements. It is actually a Key Features document that shows you all the information about the product you are about to purchase. This is designed to give you all the information you need to know before signing on the dotted line on the real agreement. When HFC sold a loan, PPI and a Critical Illness policy (as a single premium), you would get 2 legal agreements - 1 for the loan plus PPI, the other for the Critical Illness premium plus PPI. The net loan on the two agreements together in your case would add up to £10,000. Now, your PPI cost was £938.13. The interest for this over the full term was £657.87 giving a total repayable of £1596.00. This doesn't take account of the PPI premium or interest on the £535.00 for the Critical Illness policy. You may well be wise to either ask HFC to provide you with copies of your legal agreements (making a request under the Consumer Credit Act) or making a full data subject access request to get copies of everything they hold about you. If you have the proper legal agreements, I can tell you exactly what they charged and for what element of the loan/PPI. I don't think HFC have tried to cover anything up here, but I do think they have neglected to look at your other insurances that were sold at the same time and by the same person that sold you the defective PPI policy. That said, I think it's rather arrogant of HFC to say they don't accept your allegations when they were fined over £1m by the FSA for failing to treat customers fairly when selling PPI. I suspect there are legal reasons why they said that to be honest. Hope this helps. ps. Your letters to HFC are excellent by the way!

Don't worry - the stalking wasn't that bad - I didn't need a restraining order anyway I can't see any attachments though which is what we really need to work out how much they charged you for the PPI and associated insurance (which they used to call "specialty insurance"). It's important to note that whilst you were sold PPI, you were also sold additional insurance which would be subject to the same regulations as the PPI. HFC were fined just over £1m for failing to adhere to those regulations. Furthermore, the premiums for the additional insurances could be monthly or single premium. If they are single premium, they would be added to the loan (thus increasing your debt) and attract interest over the full term of the loan (further increasing your debt). Nobody here will or should advise you on whether to keep those insurances or not. Even if someone is qualified to give advice in their day job, they shouldn't do it here (main reason is they don't know enough about your personal circumstances to make a recommendation). So that's up to you to decide, or seek independent advice from a qualified advisor. However, with copies of the legal agreements, we can work out how much the premiums were and how much you were charged in interest. If you took your case to the Financial Ombudsman Service and won (which seems likely from our previous discussions), then you would also be awarded 8% simple interest from the date the policy started and maybe an amount for distress/inconvenience (usually £100-£200). I am fairly certain that for a £10k loan, your PPI premium would be a lot more than £938. This might be the joint life part of it (on the legal agreement the PPI was split into the Life premium and the ASU premium as the life portion went to Hamilton Life Assurance Company Ltd and the ASU went to Hamilton Insurance Company Ltd). If your Critical Illness and Accident Cover policies were single premiums, you would also have been given separate legal agreements for these. As dx100uk said, HFC are talking rubbish. In fact, if they have lost that information, then they have some very serious failings in their systems and controls. It sounds to me like they are hoping you'll accept the first offer they make. If they don't believe they sold you PPI, where the hell did they get £1592.93 from and why would they offer it in the first place? Forget the fact that it is near to Christmas - don't let them fob you off. The 6 months that dx100uk refers to is the time limit you have to take your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service once HFC have issued a final response letter (their last word on the matter). I would doubt HFC's first offer was a final response as they operate a 2 stage complaints process, but even if you didn't respond within 6 months, this would not prejudice and legal action you could take. Sorry for the wall of text - get your documents uploaded (black out any personally identifiable information) and we can let you know where you stand. Scooby

Hi guys I've just had a quick read through and may be able to add some insights to this case. The loan agreement is a fixed term, fixed rate agreement regulated by the CCA. The PPI premium is a single premium added to the loan and attracts interests over the full term (calculated up front). Went printing the legal agreements in branches, you'd get one "original" copy and two duplicates (for single signatory agreements). The original must be signed by both the borrower and the lender in order to be a correctly executed contract. The original is retained securely by HFC, one duplicate goes to the customer, the other in the customer's file. No signature from the borrower and there is no contract to enforce. Furthermore, HFC would not have your consent to supply data about you to credit reference agencies either if you haven't signed said contract. Now, the PPI will have separate T&C's to the loan agreement and you should have been given a copy of these when you left the branch. If I remember correctly, the policy would pay out for a maximum of 5 years, but I don't recall any term that allowed them to pay reduced amounts. The insurance provider is Hamilton Insurance Company Ltd. When accepting a claim, the insurer would back date it to the first day of illness/disability and make a payment to the loan. They would then require you to keep sending in claim forms while you continue to be unable to work. Medical retirement usually means completing a form every 6 months rather than monthly. The T&C's of the policy should state that the insured is the whole value of the monthly loan instalments - not partial. The insurance policy itself is quite straight forward really. If the claim was accepted, Hamilton Insurance would continue to make payments until you returned to work or until the loan matured (the end date). The only amount you would be required to pay would be the arrears you accrued before you became ill and unable to work. I struggle to see how this amounts to over £10,000 though... In my view, the unsigned agreement renders the insurance issues a moot point. There is no enforceable agreement under the CCA.

Yes, do everything in writing where possible so you have a full record of what transpires. You don't mention what type of accounts you had previously or what types of firms they were with (e.g. credit cards, buy no, pay later store credit, loans etc). But flipping fixed term, fixed rate credit to revolving credit is not good, unless you have plenty of disposable income to clear the debt quickly, but that said 29.9% APR is a very high rate. If they have flipped any fixed rate agreements onto revolving credit and sold you PPI, it will take a long time to clear if you only pay the minimum payments. What the FOS will look to do in my opinion (if they find in your favour), is put you back in the financial position you would have been in had HFC never sold you this product. That could mean refunding to you any over-payments above the total sum payable under your previous agreements. The fact that they flipped fixed credit to revolving credit and you have only paid £200 off your total debt shows that they haven't considered your interests or treated you fairly. Remember, these are only my opinions and only you should decide what you want to do if you are unhappy with HFC.

Correct me if I am wrong, but surely with no original copy of the executed contract, HFC cannot prove that there is an agreement and therefore the debt cannot be enforced?

If you still have the account you can still make a complaint - particularly if you have PPI on it. If the account was closed 7 years ago and you had no further accounts, any complaint would be hard to bring. But as you are still paying for this debt as a direct result of the advice they gave, you can make a complaint. As with all complaints, give HFC the opportunity to put things right first - they may even agree with you. If you are not satisfied with their final response, you can take the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service. I've seen the links saying not to refer to the FOS as it's a waste of time but I disagree entirely - the FOS maybe swamped, but they'll get there eventually and they are impartial and fair from my own experience. Plus, even if you lose the case HFC will be charged £450 (soon to be £500) for the pleasure. Given this cost and the possibility that the FOS may find in your favour, HFC may offer to settle without going to the FOS. Worth a try and you have nothing to lose - the FOS is free to consumers. Also, using the FOS service will not prejudice any court action you may want to take.

Well done you! Great news!

Hi flopper You can still make a complaint regarding the mis-sold PPI. There's no time limit as far as I am aware. Note in my last post that HFC were fined over £1m by the FSA for PPI mis-selling - any complaint about PPI mis-selling prior to the fine is more or less a done deal. As for the debt, I would ask for them to provide a copy of the legal agreement - did you get these with your subject access request?

Chase them - don't leave it that long. I'd phone them and ask what stage they are at. It's possible that they are in discussions with HFC regarding redress. I'd chase them (politely) at least once a week.

I don't think the limitation act would apply here, or would it? The question is not that the PPI was unlawful, it's that it was mis-sold. HFC are required to keep records of accounts for 5 years after termination of the agreement. So they will still hold your records. You don't state what type of account you had? I'm guessing it was a Current Account Plus or a credit card. I'm not sure how far you will be able to claim back but I would initially ask for the lot. Maybe another CAG member can answer that one? You can submit a subject access request (will cost you £10) under the Data Protection Act and formally request all information they hold about you. They'll then have 40 days to comply with that request. If they fail to do that they are then in breach of the DPA for which you can report them to the Information Commissioner who can order them to produce the information. You can also raise a formal complaint - they should have done this already if you told them you were unhappy. I would write direct to the CEO in Winkfield rather than your local branch. HFC react quicker when you write to the CEO (a different complaints team deals with it). The address is: HFC Bank Ltd North Street Winkfield Windsor SL4 4TD Another option is to go the legal route through the courts. Not my specialist area, but there are plenty of people on here who can point you in the right direction. One thing I would avoid though is claims management companies. They will charge you a fee for a "service" that you can easily do yourself for free. Please keep us updated.

The branch staff will only have a very basic understanding of the DPA and even less understanding of the CCA. I would send copies of the correspondence to the CEO in Winkfield by registered delivery if you want to get their attention. In fairness to HFC, when you write the the CEO, things usually start to happen rather quickly. Write to any other dept and you're lucky to get a response.

Yes. You can complain to HFC that they have sold you a product that was not in your best interests. The Buy Now Pay Later agreements are fixed term, fixed rate agreements, meaning you're guaranteed to have the account settled after X number of payments (usually 48 ). Yours sounds like a 6 month option account meaning you have 6 months in order to pay the balance and not be charged any interest. If you don't pay the balance, the interest gets added and it's a simple loan where you pay a set amount each month. Transferring the balance onto an open-ended, revolving credit facility may not have been in your best interests. Did you borrow anything extra or did they just "flip" the balance of your BNPL account? Also, did they sell you PPI or any other insurance policies? If you can post the details of what you originally borrowed and what HFC did when you went in to see them that would be helpful. Do not post ant personally identifiable information on this site though. To start your complaint, you should write to the CEO at their head office address: HFC Bank Ltd North Street Winkfield Windsor SL4 4TD Write to the CEO first rather than the branch as I know from experience (I worked there) that it will be handled correctly. CEO complaints are given a higher priority than complaints received at the branches. When writing a complaint you should explain why you are not happy and what you expect them to do to resolve the complaint. In your case, if you didn't borrow any extra, they should put you back in the financial position you would have been in had they not flipped your account. If they do not offer a satisfactory resolution, ask them to provide a final response. Once you have that you can write to the Financial Ombudsman Service and ask them to investigate.

Bump!

When a mortgage broker gives advice on a regulated mortgage contract, there are documents that must be provided to you to ensure everything is transparent and that you know the key terms and conditions of the product you are applying for before you sign on the dotted line. A document called the Key Features Illustration (KFI) is issued by the broker at point of sale and should detail all aspects of the contract in accordance with the regulations. When the application has been received and underwritten by the lender, you then get a formal mortgage offer in the same format with the same information. The KFI and the mortgage offer should detail any parties that benefit from any commissions or fees. Usually that's your broker and maybe a mortgage packager (an admin company that does the paperwork for your broker). If your mortgage offer details that a fee or commission will be payable to your broker as a percentage of the gross loan amount, then that would imply that is was disclosed to you before you entered into the agreement. What aspect of the product or service from your previous lender are you unhappy with and looking to complain about?

HFC will have 40 days to respond to an Subject Access Request so I'd just do it anyway and put them under pressure when they close to 40 days (as they always do). The chances are they won't have a copy of your agreement from the 1980's. HFC's filing in most branches was terrible at best! The Current Account Plus was a normal bank account and the agreement would have been regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The overdraft was a regular overdraft facility except that you had to maintain a payment of at least 1/30th of the balance each month. Most people had their salaries paid in to them so that covered that requirement. It wasn't a particularly good product and when High Street banks introduced debit cards, HFC just couldn't compete as they didn't have the infrastructure or resources to implement debit cards on their accounts. Besides, they were making much more money on the high rates of interest they charged on loans and the subsequent PPI and any other insurances they could flog. HFC Bank always was and always will be a sales company - so long as their parent company, HSBC, doesn't shut them down.

Letter C makes the assumption that there has been a change in the client's circumstances. But what if there hasn't been a change? Based on the daughter's income, I'd be more interested to know how Beneficial Finance decided that this was a responsible loan to make. Did they take the daughter's ex-boyfriend's income into account? If so, why was he not a joint signatory to the agreement? Has she been treated fairly in this regard? You need to know what information Beneficial used in order to make this lending decision. I would suggest your daughter writes to Beneficial and requests access to all the personal information they hold about her. This is best done with a Subject Access Request - your daughter sends a request in writing with a cheque of postal order for £10 by recorded delivery to: The Data Controller HFC Bank Ltd North Street Winkfield Windsor SL4 4TD Beneficial Finance is a trading name of HFC Bank Ltd. HFC will have 40 days from receipt of your request to supply the relevant information. In particular, they should have a budget planner which they used to call the "Credit Policy Matrix". This details whether the client can afford the loan or not. It will be interesting to see how they showed that she was able to afford a £4k loan based on her income. If the loan should never have been granted, your daughter may be able to challenge the agreement under the Consumer Credit Act as an unfair credit agreement if it is unfair relationship to the borrower. To make this sort of challenge in the courts I would suggest you get professional legal advice. Alternatively, as mentioned earlier the Financial Ombudsman Service is a good route to take, but they can take some time due to limited resources. They are a free and impartial service, but in my opinion your complaint to them should be on the grounds that the loan should never have been granted. Please keep us updated with any progress.