much appreciated thanks

sorry to bother you again postggj but what is Peter Barred's username as it does not appear on the recipients list as this? Thanks

postggj The insurance on the 1st loan was called Lifecare 24 and was £175 added to the loan amount. This was a 60 month term life insurance of £17,000 (not quite sure why I needed £17,000 cover for such a small loan nor why I needed it for 60 months when the loan was for 24 months). Anyway, I guess as its a life insurance policy no rebate would have been due, although I can't for the life of me think why I would have wanted or needed this. Thanks for the name, I will PM him. BobbyH

OK I am concentrating on the unsecured loan I had with WF. I took out a loan in March 05. In December 05 I took out another loan. The first loan was settled with the second loan. This is a regular thing for WF I have read. What I am checking is because I paid both loans off early, did I pay the correct settlement amounts. It becomes more complicated because the first loan should have been settled under the 1983 regulations and the second loan under the 2004 regulations. Whilst I can quite easily work out what I should have settled on the first loan! applying this to the second loan and working out what I should have settled/paid is far too complicated. For instance if the settlement figure for the first loan is wrong (and I believe it is) then this renders all the details on the second loan wrong! Are there any experts available to assist me in calculating the details of the 2nd loan with the settlement figure included from the 1st loan? I hope I haven't confused you all. I have statements for both loans, plus copies of the credit agreements. Both agreements include PPI etc. There was not any arrears on either loan! Thanks BobbyH

I am no expert but I would say that the "word document" you were asked to sign was so you would not have any claim on the house in the future! This is between you and your ex, and has nothing to do with GMAC. Only GMAC can decide to remove your name from the mortgage and it looks like this wasn't done, which means they will still come after you for the money. The shortfall, I believe, is in connection with the property being repossessed. They repossess the house, sell it and any shortfall you and you ex are jointly liable for as an unsecured loan! Like I said, I am no expert so someone may be along soon to give you some advice. BobbyH

No problem, call on me anytime. BobbyH

OK I purchased a new phone a couple of weeks back. Samsung Tocco Ultra. Its an all singing and dancing phone. In the last couple of days the battery last for about a day even though I have only used the phone a couple of time to make calls and send texts! I phone Orange and explained this to them and they checked a couple of things. They say that because the 3G masts were down in my area (and will be for a few days) then my phone is constantly searching for a signal thereby sapping the battery, however these masts are in my home town but I spend all day in London! I also had my bluetooth activated which she also said was sapping the battery and told me to switch it off! So anyway, I switched off the bluetooth and the battery has run down again (fully charged at 3pm yesterday) despite only making 1 phone call! Is she fobbing me off or is my battery crap? Thanks BobbyH

Hi GC I know you haven't updated this thread for a while but you did post something on my Future Mortgages thread so thought I would pop in and assist if needed! The £9,650 quoted above would be the Rebate on the interest you are entitled to. Total loan would be (180 * 122.29 = £22,012.20), less rebate using R78 of £9,690 less payments already made (32 * 122.29 = £3,913) leaves a settlement figure of £8,408! Based on the information you have provided they have overcharged you about £1,300. As the loan is regulated by the CCA the Consumer Credit [Rebate on early settlement] regulations 1983 were applicable this would use the Rule of 78 calculation which is what it looks like they have attempted to do but got it horribly wrong! I would be inclined to get this money back asap. If you need any help, let me know. BobbyH

Laura I would wait until you get you credit report! To get a true picture of your credit file your partner should get one also! BobbyH

Really, consumed!!

Unless I have not read the thread properly, can you tell me the reason for the CCA request? Has someone fraudulently opened an account in you name?

Some good news. I have received confirmation that FM are going to pay me £3.7k refund in early repayment charges (this includes 8% interest). BobbyH

You should be OK. Here is the ABI guidance: Good Luck to you and your wife. The ABI code of practice on non-disclosure for long-term protection policies This guide is based on the law of England and Wales. It was last updated on 22nd January 2009. The Association of British Insurers (ABI) has upgraded its guidance on the fair treatment of claims for long-term protection policies to the status of a code of practice. The guidance, which applies to life, critical illness, income protection and other long-term protection insurance products, has proved so successful that the number of complaints referred to the Financial Services Ombudsman (FOS) has halved since its introduction in January 2008. By promoting the guidance to a code of practice, the ABI hopes to make it clear that all ABI members must follow the same approach when handling claims where the policyholder has failed to disclose relevant information. The new code has also been extended to apply to non-disclosures made by individual members of group protection schemes, such as employer group life and group income protection schemes, but not to non-disclosures by group scheme owners, such as employers or trustees. Announcing the changes, Stephen Haddrill, Director General of the ABI said: ”As always, it remains essential for people to answer all questions carefully, to the best of their knowledge and belief, when they take out any protection insurance cover. However, the code means that no-one should ever be worse off as a result of a genuine mistake". The code of practice, which came into force on 19th January 2009, has been developed in the light of evolving industry practice, current regulations and the Financial Services Authority's TCF (treating customers fairly) initiative. Like the previous guidance, it goes beyond the strict legal position in many respects. It also shadows some of the proposals for law reform for consumer insurance put forward by the English and Scottish Law Commissions. Categories The code categorises breaches of the customer's duty to disclose information as innocent, negligent, or deliberate or without any care. In each case, the information omitted or misrepresented must be material, in that it would have induced the insurer to make a different underwriting decision. Notes on the typical characteristics of each category are provided as well as some illustrative examples. An innocent non-disclosure is where the customer acted honestly and reasonably in all the circumstances, including any individual circumstances known to the insurer. In such cases, the insurer should pay the claim in full. A non-disclosure is negligent if the customer failed to exercise reasonable care. This can range from mere oversight to serious negligence. The test is whether a reasonable person in the circumstances would have known the information was incorrect and was relevant to the insurer. If so, the insurer will apply a proportionate remedy based on what would have happened had the information been disclosed. In cases where the non-disclosure is deliberate or made without any care, the insurer must be able to show on the balance of probabilities that the customer knew or must have known that the information was incorrect and relevant to the insurer, or that the customer did not care whether it was or not. In such cases, the insurer is entitled to "avoid" the policy - decline the claim and cancel the policy from inception, as if it had never existed. But if the customer has a credible explanation (and/or there are other credible mitigating circumstances), or if the information omitted was relatively unimportant, the claim should not be categorised as deliberate and a proportionate remedy will apply. Assessing claims Before making any judgment on the category of the non-disclosure, the insurer should first ask the customer why the information was incomplete or incorrect. A customer taking out critical illness cover, for example, who failed to disclose he was taking medication for hypertension and then suffered a heart attack, might genuinely not have considered himself as suffering from high blood pressure because the pills were controlling it and his GP told him the treatment was routine and "nothing to worry about". A credible explanation might persuade the insurer that the customer was not acting deliberately or without any care. In the above example, the non-disclosure was still negligent because a reasonable person ought to have known the information was relevant to the insurer. Various other factors also need to be taken into account, such as whether the questions the customer was asked were sufficiently clear and concise. Was an intermediary involved? If so, what was the intermediary's role? Was the customer given a chance to check the answers? Were adequate warnings given about the duty to disclose and the consequences of non-disclosure? An insurer is fully entitled to ask for any medical or other information needed to assess the claim properly. But it should have legitimate reasons for doing so. The code reminds insurers that the Financial Ombudsman Service will take a dim view of medical evidence clearly obtained without an appropriate reason. An insurer should, therefore, carefully consider whether it can limit its request to information about specific conditions or to a time period appropriate to the medical condition it has reason to believe may have existed. And it should maintain an audit trail of what it has requested and its reasons for doing so. Proportionate remedies The code provides that, when there has been negligent non-disclosure, the insurer's remedy should aim to put the customer in the same position he would have been in had he disclosed the information correctly. The customer should not be left better off than any other customer who disclosed all the relevant information. This means the insurer must work out as far as possible what its underwriting decision would have been had the information been disclosed at the time the policy was taken out. If the premium would have been rated and a higher premium charged, the insurer will calculate how much cover the actual premium would have bought and pay that amount. If the insurer would have applied an exclusion, it will handle the claim as if the policy included that exclusion. Whether or not the claim is affected will then depend on whether the circumstances fall within the exclusion. Even if the claim is payable, it may still be less than the full amount if a premium rating would also have applied. If the application for cover would have been declined altogether, no policy would have been issued and so the insurer will not pay the claim. In such circumstances, the code requires the insurer to return the premium. In some cases, the insurer may conclude that the underwriting decision would have been deferred, perhaps until the results of a pending test were known or further investigations were carried out. If so, the underwriter should determine as far as possible what the final underwriting decision would have been and then apply the appropriate remedy. One of the examples given is of a customer making a cancer claim under a critical illness policy who failed to disclose when he applied for the cover that he was awaiting the result of a test for malignancy of a mole. Had it known about the test, the insurer would have deferred its underwriting decision until the result was available. But since the test result showed that the mole was perfectly normal, the insurer would have accepted the application and so must now pay the claim in full. In cases where the insurer would have deferred its underwriting decision indefinitely, or the customer would have been required to reapply for cover at a future date, the insurer will be entitled to decline the claim. Avoidance Only where the customer acted deliberately or without any care is the insurer entitled to avoid (cancel) the policy from the outset. But the code confines this remedy to only "the most serious cases of non-disclosure". If the customer has failed to disclose medical information, for instance, the insurer must take into account that he may not have fully understood his medical history. Deliberate non-disclosure is more likely to be proved if it is something most consumers would realise was important to the risk (such as a diagnosis of cancer or heart disease) or involves recent or ongoing treatment for something most consumers would recognise as important. The implications of certain lifestyle choices (such as smoking) are, however, more widely understood. A customer who fails to disclose that he is a heavy smoker "will need to give a particularly credible and convincing explanation" if the non-disclosure is not to be classed as deliberate or made without any care. If the insurer avoids the policy, the code provides that it should normally return the premium unless there is clear evidence of fraud or a court has found the non-disclosure was fraudulent.

I am not sure this helps, but you can make an official complaint! I have been in a similar situation with the CSA before, where the schedules they send you can be quite confusing! Mine is taken direct from my salary but the schedules they send my employers are the same as mine and my empolyers have been caught out before. The results of this confusion is arrears, which the CSA do not normally tell you about until the amount has reached quite a sizeable amount!! If you are 100% sure you have been paying what you should have (You have had a number of reassessements over the years!), then make an official complaint!

Have they sent you any proof that this debt actually exists. If not, ask them for a breakdown of how this arrears has arisen after 6 years of not receiving anything! I wouldn't say to them your aren't going to pay it, but would like the chance to check to see if this is correct!

You should be OK. Here is the ABI guidance: Good Luck The ABI code of practice on non-disclosure for long-term protection policies This guide is based on the law of England and Wales. It was last updated on 22nd January 2009. The Association of British Insurers (ABI) has upgraded its guidance on the fair treatment of claims for long-term protection policies to the status of a code of practice. The guidance, which applies to life, critical illness, income protection and other long-term protection insurance products, has proved so successful that the number of complaints referred to the Financial Services Ombudsman (FOS) has halved since its introduction in January 2008. By promoting the guidance to a code of practice, the ABI hopes to make it clear that all ABI members must follow the same approach when handling claims where the policyholder has failed to disclose relevant information. The new code has also been extended to apply to non-disclosures made by individual members of group protection schemes, such as employer group life and group income protection schemes, but not to non-disclosures by group scheme owners, such as employers or trustees. Announcing the changes, Stephen Haddrill, Director General of the ABI said: ”As always, it remains essential for people to answer all questions carefully, to the best of their knowledge and belief, when they take out any protection insurance cover. However, the code means that no-one should ever be worse off as a result of a genuine mistake". The code of practice, which came into force on 19th January 2009, has been developed in the light of evolving industry practice, current regulations and the Financial Services Authority's TCF (treating customers fairly) initiative. Like the previous guidance, it goes beyond the strict legal position in many respects. It also shadows some of the proposals for law reform for consumer insurance put forward by the English and Scottish Law Commissions. Categories The code categorises breaches of the customer's duty to disclose information as innocent, negligent, or deliberate or without any care. In each case, the information omitted or misrepresented must be material, in that it would have induced the insurer to make a different underwriting decision. Notes on the typical characteristics of each category are provided as well as some illustrative examples. An innocent non-disclosure is where the customer acted honestly and reasonably in all the circumstances, including any individual circumstances known to the insurer. In such cases, the insurer should pay the claim in full. A non-disclosure is negligent if the customer failed to exercise reasonable care. This can range from mere oversight to serious negligence. The test is whether a reasonable person in the circumstances would have known the information was incorrect and was relevant to the insurer. If so, the insurer will apply a proportionate remedy based on what would have happened had the information been disclosed. In cases where the non-disclosure is deliberate or made without any care, the insurer must be able to show on the balance of probabilities that the customer knew or must have known that the information was incorrect and relevant to the insurer, or that the customer did not care whether it was or not. In such cases, the insurer is entitled to "avoid" the policy - decline the claim and cancel the policy from inception, as if it had never existed. But if the customer has a credible explanation (and/or there are other credible mitigating circumstances), or if the information omitted was relatively unimportant, the claim should not be categorised as deliberate and a proportionate remedy will apply. Assessing claims Before making any judgment on the category of the non-disclosure, the insurer should first ask the customer why the information was incomplete or incorrect. A customer taking out critical illness cover, for example, who failed to disclose he was taking medication for hypertension and then suffered a heart attack, might genuinely not have considered himself as suffering from high blood pressure because the pills were controlling it and his GP told him the treatment was routine and "nothing to worry about". A credible explanation might persuade the insurer that the customer was not acting deliberately or without any care. In the above example, the non-disclosure was still negligent because a reasonable person ought to have known the information was relevant to the insurer. Various other factors also need to be taken into account, such as whether the questions the customer was asked were sufficiently clear and concise. Was an intermediary involved? If so, what was the intermediary's role? Was the customer given a chance to check the answers? Were adequate warnings given about the duty to disclose and the consequences of non-disclosure? An insurer is fully entitled to ask for any medical or other information needed to assess the claim properly. But it should have legitimate reasons for doing so. The code reminds insurers that the Financial Ombudsman Service will take a dim view of medical evidence clearly obtained without an appropriate reason. An insurer should, therefore, carefully consider whether it can limit its request to information about specific conditions or to a time period appropriate to the medical condition it has reason to believe may have existed. And it should maintain an audit trail of what it has requested and its reasons for doing so. Proportionate remedies The code provides that, when there has been negligent non-disclosure, the insurer's remedy should aim to put the customer in the same position he would have been in had he disclosed the information correctly. The customer should not be left better off than any other customer who disclosed all the relevant information. This means the insurer must work out as far as possible what its underwriting decision would have been had the information been disclosed at the time the policy was taken out. If the premium would have been rated and a higher premium charged, the insurer will calculate how much cover the actual premium would have bought and pay that amount. If the insurer would have applied an exclusion, it will handle the claim as if the policy included that exclusion. Whether or not the claim is affected will then depend on whether the circumstances fall within the exclusion. Even if the claim is payable, it may still be less than the full amount if a premium rating would also have applied. If the application for cover would have been declined altogether, no policy would have been issued and so the insurer will not pay the claim. In such circumstances, the code requires the insurer to return the premium. In some cases, the insurer may conclude that the underwriting decision would have been deferred, perhaps until the results of a pending test were known or further investigations were carried out. If so, the underwriter should determine as far as possible what the final underwriting decision would have been and then apply the appropriate remedy. One of the examples given is of a customer making a cancer claim under a critical illness policy who failed to disclose when he applied for the cover that he was awaiting the result of a test for malignancy of a mole. Had it known about the test, the insurer would have deferred its underwriting decision until the result was available. But since the test result showed that the mole was perfectly normal, the insurer would have accepted the application and so must now pay the claim in full. In cases where the insurer would have deferred its underwriting decision indefinitely, or the customer would have been required to reapply for cover at a future date, the insurer will be entitled to decline the claim. Avoidance Only where the customer acted deliberately or without any care is the insurer entitled to avoid (cancel) the policy from the outset. But the code confines this remedy to only "the most serious cases of non-disclosure". If the customer has failed to disclose medical information, for instance, the insurer must take into account that he may not have fully understood his medical history. Deliberate non-disclosure is more likely to be proved if it is something most consumers would realise was important to the risk (such as a diagnosis of cancer or heart disease) or involves recent or ongoing treatment for something most consumers would recognise as important. The implications of certain lifestyle choices (such as smoking) are, however, more widely understood. A customer who fails to disclose that he is a heavy smoker "will need to give a particularly credible and convincing explanation" if the non-disclosure is not to be classed as deliberate or made without any care. If the insurer avoids the policy, the code provides that it should normally return the premium unless there is clear evidence of fraud or a court has found the non-disclosure was fraudulent.

The Stroke definnition is based on the ABI guidelines (according to Unum's website). This definition is: Stroke. Death of brain tissue due to inadequate blood supply or haemorrhage within the skull resulting in permanent neurological deficit with persisting clinical symptoms. For the above definition, the following is not covered: Transient ischaemic attack. Traumatic injury to brain tissue or blood vessels. If this applies to your wife's case then appeal. Good luck BobbyH

I realise the OP hasn't been around for a while, but can the above be right for something as trivial as a caution??

Bump

AAA7 The 2 which are straight forward life insurance policies, payout on death only and state there is no surrender value, can be binned. These have clearly lapsed. For the remaining 3, I would write to the company concerned (can you name the company?) and ask specifically for a surrender value! I would do the same for the Executive Investment Plans! There might be some surrender value to them! BobbyH

From their website: "If you become a customer, Representative or Sales Leader we may need to give essential personal details to an authorised third party. Examples include fulfilling orders, carrying out surveys, delivery of your orders, analysing data, marketing assistance, processing credit card payments, credit reference checking and providing general customer service. We may also use the information to notify you about new products and special offers we think you'll be interested in, important changes to the website, or for other marketing purposes we think would interest you."

What kind of policies are they? Life Insurance or some kind of endowment policy?

I don't think they have to supply CCA when account is fully paid off. What you could do is SAR them and go for the charges which they would have undoubtedly applied to the account, the balance of the charges could then be used as a leverage to remove the adverse data from the CRA.

This is a complete load of tosh. My previous post on the 20 March came directly from Unum's website for their Voluntary CI policy. Also what about the fact that Unum have written to you and confirmed your spouse's benefit?? BobbyH

I don't know for sure, but he is still part of the mortgage, although she pays it all!!