If they have sold the debt to a third party then they cannot offset (unless they buy the debt back to do so )

Assuming that the unpaid amount and PPI both relate to the same account I would say that the offset is permitted (unless you are in Scotland) as the debt remains live, it is merely enforcement that is statute barred. If these are two accounts with the same lender, I think you would have a strong case that this can't be done

In terms of the DSAR, I would not expect the payee being NatWest to cause an issue. RBS have 40 days to comply and seldom meet this statutory timescale. It is likely that you will need to send a non-compliance chaser letter once the 40 days deadline arrives

If you have not had the letters I would call RBS to advise you have had a chaser text but no decision letter on 0800 015 0319 and they can clarify and send / re-send the letters

I am aware that RBS do chase acceptances by text, You should however deal with their letter in your own timescale not theirs, particularly if you think its incorrect. The only important timescale is that if you want to take the case to FOS you must do so within 6 months of the letter date.

Not really my field of expertise but my understanding is that if there was a guarantor for the credit agreement this would need to be noted within the agreement itself. Also within the figures you quote at the start there are no insurances mentioned. Most sub-prime lenders usually add on as many of these as they can - Gap, warranty etc. If you have, for example paid £6,950 balance on the car and £1,000 in spurious insurances and the bill of sale shows £7,950 for the car then the description of goods on the bill of sale would be incorrect and potentially open to challenge Also - was the bill of sale witnessed independently or was it signed by the salesman or his colleague - there are suggestions on other threads that this would invalidate the bill of sale - perhaps somebody more experienced in this area could clarify whether this would be the case ?

And they have had their consumer credit licence suspended today, the first time the OFT has used this power against a payday lender http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/2007471.article?cmpid=pmalert_156023

Any payments made after 1 October 2013 must have tax at 20% deducted from the 8% interest. HMRC tax helpline on 0300 200 3300 should be able to assist if a reclaim is needed

In order to say whether an offer is correct, you will need all the information on amounts and dates paid. In terms of making a guess as to whether its in the right ball park - you have said this was a £7,500 loan in 2005 - can you recall how long the loan was supposed to run and whether it ran the full term or was paid off early ? If you go back to RBS to say you are not accepting RBS will almost certainly say that you need to go to the Ombudsman. If the offer is correct (and at the moment we don't know whether it is or not) t hen there would be no benefit in going to FOS. If you were able to post up details of the offer (making sure to remove any personal details) then i'm sure somebody will be able to have a look for you

Does the reference start PPI/PBR followed by a number or just PPI. If it starts PPI there should be a table on the first page and the first line of the table is the amount that has actually been paid in PPI including interest that you have paid. If it starts PPI/PBR the acceptance form should tell you "Total refund of PPI premiums and associated interest paid to date" (near the top). These figures are the amount that you have paid for PPI. In addition to sending the SAR it would be useful to request full calculations which RBS sometimes send but often refuse (and often omit from DSAR's)

Hi these assumed numbers are not what you actually paid for the PPI but an amount that RBS are trying to deduct stating that you would have bought this policy instead. RBS neatly sidestep the fact that they didn't sell regular premium loan PPI and therefore could not possibly have sold this to you. The letter should also say how much it has actually charged you for PPI

I am not aware of any recent changes in the legislation / FOS stance around offsetting. It's more likely that the "recent development" is a change in their own procedures prompted possibly by losing a few cases at FOS or a business decision to treat certain types of cases differently. What do your own calculations say about the original offer - was it more or less than you expected. ?

This seems reasonable - the likelihood is the case will sit in an Ombudsman queue for some time so you can always add further points at a later date if anything else comes to mind.

Rest assured - if there is an "admin error" - they will have underpaid not overpaid you !

The FCA register shows the following - may be worth a call Contact for complaints: 204598 - CitiFinancial Europe Plc Contact for Complaints:Ian ClarkAddress: The address shown is the address that consumers should use if they wish to complain about their dealings with the firm. Citigroup Centre Canada Square Canary Wharf London E14 5LB Phone: Fax: Email: Website: 44 0203 569 1001 - - - Ian.Paul.Clark@Citi.com - Contact(s) responsible for insurance mediation: Mr Alan Duffell

My understanding is that it could be chased until the completion certificate is issued (unless you have paid 100% of the balances within the IVA). I would recommend chasing GT for the completion certificate

Capital One will definitely still have your information. Do you still have any statements for the account, in which case it would be listed as a purchase transaction (usually the last item each month). If not your options would be ringing them to ask or a subject access request. The former is quicker and free, the latter costs £10 ans is supposed to take a maximum of 40 days. I would suggest initially ringing them on 0333 0001601 however make it clear that at this stage you just want o know if you had PPI you do not want to complain at this stage. Once you know if you had PPI you can then look into why it may have been unsuitable and send a written complaint (I should add that if they say you didnt have PPI - this is not 100% reliable and I would then go ahead with the subject access request) The very fact that you don't know if you had it certainly suggests that it wasn't correctly explained to you

Sadly I cant predict the vagaries of the FOS system - what I can say is that generally you get a better standard of decision from an Ombudsman that an adjudicator - and that I think she has a good case. In my view, its worth persevering

Hi, when you say that your offer to clear the IVA has been accepted - has this now been done and have you received a completion certificate from Grant Thornton. My understanding from dealing with a number of PPI IVA cases is as follows; - If a completion certificate has been issued, any refund would fall outside the IVA and neither the lender nor the IVA practitioner has any right to pay it other than to you. (IRRESEPECTIVE OF HE T&C's OF THE CLOSED IVA) - If the IVA remains live, any refund would go into the IVA irrespective of whether the attached credit formed part of the IVA as it would be classed as a "windfall payment" if paid in respect of an unconnected loan. As always with such matters I will stress this is a personal opinion based upon how similar cases have been dealt with, the only thing certain about PPI refund and IVA's is that the position is uncertain and inconsistent as IVA legislation didn't envisage a position where your creditors may also owe you money.

Capital One and FOS would have sent exactly the same response to a third party bringing the complaint

A delayed response is no surprise and FOS are not keen on chasing lenders for this. I would certainly try and push the adjudicator for a timescale as to when he will move to adjudication without a case file (given that this is originally requested by FOS when the case is "converted" (usually once they are happy they have all your paperwork for the case). It is absolutely worth bringing to the adjudicator's attention that you have now been made aware (from the FOS website) of the derisory amount that the policy would have paid out as one of the things that FOS look at when deciding whether you would have taken out a policy is did it offer "value for money"

To my mind this is definitely worth an escalation and I would be including the following points (non-exhaustive and I am sure others will add to it) - I applied for a credit card in writing and did not select PPI - One week later the policy came to be added to the account after a call that Capital One acknowledge was not compliant - There is no evidence of informed consent being provided - Whilst Capital One's fine during the period does not in itself confirm mis-selling it certainly casts doubts upon both the sales process and whether this was followed by the lender. -In the adjudication the adjudicator states that Capital One had a duty to give you the information you needed to decide whether to take out the policy. Capital One has acknowledged that it did not do so - Whilst the script that the sales advisor may have used prompted a discussion on optionality there is no evidence to suggest that the script was followed. Even if it was Capital One has acknowledged that this script was flawed. Hopefully that's a couple of points to get you started - the other thing worth checking is that if this was an NHS employed role with two years service it is likely that sickness benefit would be 6 months full followed by 6 months half pay rather than 3 and 3 as stated

Most, if not all of the banks do have targets in place for complaint handling (not just PPI) and in many cases getting a prompt outcome is seen to be more important than getting the correct outcome

Ascent Legal & Irwin Mitchell are part of the same group. As I understand it Ascent deal with collections and also some bulk processing e.g taking statements. Irwin Mitchell would deal when "proper legal work" is involved. - perhaps as Andy notes above this could be a positive step

Given that you are paying £9.95 a month for your Silver account and you say yourself that you do not use the benefits then it would benefit you to switch to a free account ASAP and claim back the costs that you have been paying for this. Also, I have had a quick look at the product benefits (of which there are few) and I can see no mention of any kind of legal cover. legal cover is more commonly an option with your home insurance.