Genuine question: Why is it considered mis-selling if self employed? The only policies I have seen appear to cover self employed in the event of the business going under (unemployment claim) and accident/sickness claims would be the same as for an employed person wouldn't they?

They sound like those policies that used to cover all your cards if they were lost or stolen - you register all your plastic with them and one call to them and they would contact all your card issuers to stop the cards - that type of thing. I had one myself about 15 years ago until I saw the light and realised that I didn't really have a use for it. I think they were known as card protection plans (CPP) and don't even know if they still exist nowadays. Doesn't sound like PPI anyway. HTH:roll:

GE Money is huge - part of USA's General Electric company, which is one of the biggest organisations in the world. The FSA fine was in relation to their storecard business (under the name GE Capital). Some of their other businesses, such as secured lending, is done through brokers. Hope this helps.

Unless I'm mistaken when you say you took it out in September, you mean September 2001, as per the date at the bottom of the agreement? The APR appears halfway down the right hand column. The form and content of credit agreements changed in May 2005, so this one shouldn't be judged against current legislation. It still looks very 'basic' though IMHO.

Also, there is no requirement (as far as I can tell) for them to give you a choice to go elsewhere, or suggest you may be able to get it cheaper elsewhere.

Could be just a scare tactic, but as I've just mentioned in another thread, banks to seem to be more inclined to defend these claims. It is normal in any court case for the winning party to seek their costs from the loser - just as you could do if you won (Edit) - this may not apply to the small claims court BTW, but in some cases the sums of money involved may take it higher than this.

I see on the Conkers website they have announced some sort of action in respect of a dozen test cases to try and set a precedent. The problem with all of this is that there doesn't appear to be an obvious point of law upon which all cases can be categorised under, unlike the bank charges situation which relied on the simple rule that it was illegal to charge a 'penalty' other than reasonable costs. Each PPI case could depend on a unique set of individual circumstances (and available evidence) and I therefore believe will be a tougher nut to crack. Witness also that banks appear to be much more eager to defend these cases than was witnessed with bank charges......

What they mean is that when (if) the court finds in their favour they will seek reimbursement of the costs of their defence (i.e. their solicitors fee etc) from you.

If you got a claim paid out for depression then it must have been one of the better policies out there.... I don't see how you can claim back the premiums on a policy which you have had a (pretty big) benefit from. Not sure how the usual arguments would stack up here.

The CAB's 'Protection Racket' is actually the title of a super-complaint that they put to the OFT under powers set up by the DTI. Other super-complaints have been made to the OFT about things like doorstep selling, care homes and private dentistry. The FSA were already on with their own investigation prior to all this as it didn't take long for them to identify the potential issues with the market after they took on its regulation in 2005. The OFT conducted their own market study and have now referred the matter to the Competition Commission - the outcome of which is still in the future. I really should get out more.......

No problem. Information about the way any insurance should be sold is buried within the FSA's website. That is the source of information I would trust the most.

Just to clarify, there is no requirement for them to do this.

No problem. Suffice to say, interest on fixed term/rate loans is calculated on a flat % per annum basis. eg - I borrow £1000 x 12 months at 10%pa and the interest charge is therefore £100, my total repayable is £1100 and my monthly payment is £91.67. If I borrow the same about over 36 months the interest charge is £300, total repayable is £1300 and my monthly payment is £36.11. That is the easy bit, and the 8%pa used in most claims is worked out on the same basis. APR's however, are a completely different calculation - used as a way of comparing loans over a range of types and providers. I haven't got the appetite to take over this thread by describing it in any more detail, but suggest interested readers have a look here The main thing in the context of this thread, however, is not to assume that if the APR is higher than 8% then that is the one to go for - since May 2005 all fixed term/rate agreements have been required to also show the annual interest rate as well as the APR.

Please use caution - some of the advice on here, whilst well meaning, is wrong. 14.9% APR is almost certainly (depending on what other fees are involved and the term of the loan) a slightly lower rate than 8%pa (per annum). A lot of people are confusing flat rates and APR's and are possibly assuming they are the same. Even the spreadsheet I have just had a quick look at has a column heading 8% APR when it whould say 8% PA.

I'll put it another way.....according to your agreement the cash price of the car was £5580. Was there any indication...for example from the screen price of the car....that it was originally priced at around £1000 more than that? Did either of you actually ask for the £1000 minimum p/ex as advertised? I really don't know why motor dealers make these things so confusing because I'm convinced they would actually sell more and make more profit if they actually explained everything properly.

Whoaa - hang on a minute. You will be paying this interest monthly - added to the loan, and will therefore have only so far have paid interest for the time you have had the loan for. If you get the PPI refunded this will be deducted from the balance of the loan and will therefore no longer attract interest. I wouldn't go chasing for money you haven't yet paid - you would more than likely be laughed out of court.

My point was however that it hardly goes in Scott's favour if thinking about a reclaim......that and the 18 year gap. I would have imagined that the ability for the insurers to recover their losses upon a successful claim would have been reflected in the original premiums. Whether it is fair or not is I'm sure not part of the policy wording. :idea:

Also known as 'Mortgage Guarantee Insurance'. I had to pay for this when I bought my 1st house in the 80's with a 100% mortgage. It was a different age back then....... As for reclaiming - how would that work when the policy was obviously claimed upon and therefore did its job ?

The amount of interest and total amount repayable will not be shown because you have a variable interest rate. I would imagine that the interest is added monthly (like a mortgage), but the total amount payable is not known due to possible future fluctuations in the interest rate. HTH

The £1 deposit is probably them 'writing back' the p/ex value. This is common practice in the motor trade, in order to save on VAT. Whem minimum part exchange offers are made of (say) £1000, they have simply added that to their asking price in order to guard against having to take in a £50 banger. What they end up doing is then reducing the asking price by £999 and showing £1 for your part exchange. Confusing, but legal, although it would seem it hasn't been explained to you. Did they actually knock any money off the screen price?