In order for a payment to reset the SB clock, it needs to have been made by you or, on your behalf with your authority to do so. Given that you have neither made the payment nor were the accountants acting for you at that time, it is my own view that this payment would not restart the clock. Do you have any written confirmation that the accountants ceased to act for you in 2008, this would certainly help the case I would suggest a brief letter to the DCA advising that the account is statute barred as you did not pay or authorise the 2012 payment, asking them to provide evidence that you authorised the 2012 payment from HMRC via the accountants if they disagree

Lombard Direct cases are dealt with by RBS - PPI Customer concerns team, Retail Products, 5th Floor, 1 Hardman Boulevard, Manchester, M3 3AQ Tel : 0800 015 0319 Although Paragon deal with outsourced loan administration , RBS will deal with complaints regarding the initial sale. Also if it was paid off in 2011 - get hold of your credit report which should still show the account and use the details on there as proof of the account. It should provide amount, start and end dates and payment history which should be sufficient for RBS to locate without an account number

Most lenders will send a generic holding letter after 4 weeks so don't be concerned about receiving this. However, your right to approach the Financial Ombudsman starts 8 weeks after complaining and this will be unaffected by any alternate dates that they might suggest.

Perhaps Andy can clarify but should the defence to point 4 actually read 4.Paragraph 4 is denied and incorrect or untrue. Andy (a different one)

In terms of "set off" - this payment is going to the same account that the arrears balance is on so the lender is entitled to do this automatically If on the other hand RBS were to pay the redress to another account with the bank (for example a loan with an arrears balance), my understanding is that this would need to be shown in the T&C's (and usually, but not always, is)

That's excellent news - good luck with NRAM and Citi

This certainly sounds like good news - well done. The two things I would check are firstly; Do the figures match what you expected / calculated ? Secondly - does the letter state that payment will be made to you by cheque or is there a possibility that Lloyds will try and offset against the sold-on credit card ? If you are happy with both answers I would be minded to accept

I am aware of at least one occasion where this happened in 2011 - when the cheques bounced recipients were told that they had not been signed by the correct signatories - this was given as the reason for the Bank's refusal to honour the cheques when they were presented. In the cases I am aware of, replacements were issued relatively quickly by a somewhat embarrassed RBS and the subsequent cheques were able to be cashed without further incident.

It wouldn't be the first time one of their PPI redress cheques had bounced - so wait for it to clear before you consider it a victory !

Hi, I would await the decision in the post next week. But just to be clear, Go Debt don't serve a CCJ - if they go ahead with court action they will issue a claim. In order for that claim to become a CCJ, you either have to not respond to the claim within the specific timescale or you would have to go to court and lose. Given the issues in this case, if I were Go Debt, I wouldn't want the case being looked at by a judge. If they do however issue papers, come back on here as soon as you receive them and somebody familiar with the court process will be able to assist

RBS PPI phone number is 0800 015 0319 - they will be able to look into it for you

It is not uncommon for the payments to be later than promised but I would definitely give them a chase to find out what's going on.

Given previous experience with Lloyds, I wouldn't put it past them to defend the case even though you ticked no ppi ! Let us know how you get on and come back if you need any help

It is unclear whether you mean will this affect a claim under the policy or a PPI refund claim. If you had a pre-existing medical condition it is likely that Lloyds would pay any potential claim under the policy. Because they would probably exclude a claim for this condition, this would strengthen your mis-selling complaint. I would always advise that you answer all the questions as truthfully as possible providing as much information as you can. If you genuinely don't know / cant remember the answer to a question then put this on the form. As IMS says, don't worry about any arbitrary timescale set by Lloyds for returning the form - although the sooner you complete it, the sooner they will look at the complaint

Under the FCA redress guidance the lender should automatically include any overlimit fees that were a result of the PPI as part of the calculation (i.e if you were overlimit by less than the amount of the PPI included in the balance these fees should be refunded). Some lenders are better than others at doing this without asking - RBS tend to be among the better ones on this particular issue.

Glad to hear the claim was a success - good luck with the others - follow the same approach and hopefully you will have the same result

That letter suggests to me that they don't really know what they are doing. An expectation that the FOS will resolve a complaint within 8 weeks is not something you would see from anybody who is at all familiar in dealing with the service. I also very sceptical that you could lodge a court claim but request that it is not served, it seems to me that they are looking for a route to convince you that this case will not be statute barred (although personally I would have thought the best way of doing so would have been to not mention the case will soon be statute barred !) I would wait and see what their next move is and go from there

The legal side of things is not my field of expertise but hopefully one of the more experienced people can expand on the following. My understanding is that under the CPR rules that govern court action, the parties should make all reasonable efforts to agree prior to issuing court papers. This would involve exploring the use of any Alternative Dispute Resolution Service that was available and that the most appropriate ADR service for financial disputes of this type would be FOS i.e. Court papers should not be issued whilst parties are trying to resolve matters with FOS. Somebody more knowledgeable can hopefully clarify further detail but at worst if it does go to court, its one more piece of evidence to demonstrate that the other party are acting unreasonably

First Target Recoveries are indeed under investigation by the Ministry of Justice https://www.claimsregulation.gov.uk/enforcement.aspx If I were you I would ensure that there is nothing in the pack that suggests they believe they are already acting on your behalf - they shouldn't claim to be acting for you without a signed contract, however claims firms who follow all the rules are not those who tend to get investigated by the regulator.

When sending the complaint to FOS I would take the approach of a very clear detailed summary, trying to keep things as clear as possible. I would also be emphasising whether the actions of the company are "fair " or "reasonable" rather than getting into legal technicalities at this stage - as it is unlikely that a FOS adjudicator will have as much knowledge as some of the posters on the thread. They also make a point that they do not strictly rely on the law, more a case of what is reasonable. I would certainly include as much documentation as possible, but me mindful that they may pass copies to the other party. Then be ready for a lengthy wait before they make a decision

IMHO it would be a bad idea to let this go - if the recipient is monitoring the account they will realise that your account was good for £156 this month and may be hoping to increase future payments by varying the Tomlin order. Contacting them to advise of an overpayment which has disadvantaged your other creditors and/or cause hardship would be the route I would suggest Given that there is a Tomlin order in place, any refusal to refund the overpaid amount would not look good on their part.

Given that Barclays initially stated that there was NO PPI, the original poster, did not escalate the case to FOS as Barclays had effectively stated there was no case to investigate. Given that this is the case I would certainly think a FOS complaint would be worth a go. (Had Barclays said that there was PPI but that it was not mis-sold I would agree wholly with mightymouse that the claim would have little chance of success)

My understanding (and I am neither a lawyer nor insolvency practitioner) is that all lenders post 1 October 2013 must pay 8% interest net of tax. Prior to that some lenders paid net and others paid gross but advised you should declare as taxable income. If you are a basic rate taxpayer you would be liable to pay tax on amounts paid gross and unable to claim back tax already paid - as it is essentially correctly taxed. The taxation position is based upon your income, even though the money goes to the trustee. If you earn insufficient to pay basic rate tax, my understanding is that any tax overpaid can be claimed back (it may be that HMRC will ask for confirmation that the accountant in bankruptcy has agreed to you making the claim). The refund of tax will however go to the trustee in bankruptcy just as the rest of the recovered funds have done. My suggestion would be that given the trustee is responsible for managing the payments to advise him/her that some have been paid gross / some net and leave it to them to sort out - that way you can be seen to be co-operating as fully as possible - You may even find that they have already picked up on this and dealt with HMRC to sort this. (This is my own informed opinion based upon experience of PPI redress, it is not a however a substitute for the professional advice of a tax accountant or insolvency practitioner and should not be relied upon for the purpose of any submissions that you may be required to make to HMRC)

Not only is it odd - it's wholly incorrect. If you were not sold PPI - you can't claim it back - its as simple as that.

The decisions lenders make on PPI cases are inconsistent and occasionally baffling so it is impossible to state what the outcome would be - however as DX says the terms and conditions required a business to to cease trading (and in some cases were even more onerous), if you were a sub contractor - you would not have the power to close the principal business and would therefore be severely unlikely to make a claim. Similarly if you worked on a contract for a period and then when it finished looked for the next one, Mint would view this as part of the nature of your employment and you would be highly unlikely to make a successful claim. Essentially Mint should have explained to you any specific terms and conditions that would disproportionately affect the self-employed given that it was aware you were self-employed and it is highly unlikely that it did so