New Pending Court Action With Restons

[BelstarBomb]

Vint,

 

I had used your advice in my letter especially with regards to seeing that they had advised or questioned me adequately about PPI. Maybe that's what they are taking instructions about as I pointed out that it is relevant to the agreement.

 

Bel

[citizenB]

All you can do is wait on their response now:)

[BelstarBomb]

Hi Guys,

 

Have just heard back from the OC re the PPI and they have not (surprisingly) upheald my complaint.

 

They say that their records show that it was applied following a conversation I had with their customer services on XX August 1999. Apparently a welcome pack was sent to me setting out the benefits etc and giving me a cooling off period and the option to cancel.

 

I have looked through th einformation from their Ceasar system and there is an entry there for the date in August headed up PPI but no details of any allegded conversation.

 

They say that when I fell into arrears with the card, surely wouldn't I have noticed the premiums coming out?

 

Anyway, I had asked for proof that they had done their due dilligence and they haven't supplied it. They have said that they will not respond further and that I should now complain to FOS.

 

Obvioulsy I will, but are there any other pointers that you can give?

 

Also looking at the first DN, it states that I have to pay the arrears by a certain date, if I don't, on that date they will terminate the agreement and that I will need to pay £xxxx being the outstanding balance at that time on that date.

 

Interest and charges were still added up the next DN received 7 months later. Noting the court papers, the amount shown as the default amount is the amount shown on the second DN notice not the first.

 

Where exactly does that leave me as I'm sure Restons will come back ASAP after the OC's PPI response?

 

Can they restart court action using the first DN if my complain to the FOS re the PPI isn't upheld? Obviously I also have proof with envelopes etc that both DN's are defective but I'm looking at the worst case scenario.

 

Cheers,

 

Bel

[diddydicky]

as far as i remember- when financial products are sold- the seller is obliged to carry out a "fact find" and satisfy themelves that the product they are selling is suitable for your needs

 

the fact that you agreed to a phone conversation or ticked a box on a form does not of itself show that they carried out due dilligence

[BelstarBomb]

Hi DD,

 

That's what I thought. In my letter I had asked for proof that they had been this thorough and they have not supplied it. The computer printout supplied does not contain the details of the alleged conversation as if it had taken place and they had asked me the right questions it would have been apparant that the policy would not pay out as I knew I was about to be made redundant.

 

Also, there is nothing to confirm when and if the Welcome Pack was actually received.

 

What are you thoughts on the DN's?

 

Cheers,

 

Bel

[diddydicky]

i would ask them to confirm if the conversation was recorded and if so to send you a transcript

[citizenB]

i would ask them to confirm if the conversation was recorded and if so to send you a transcript

 

I would agree with diddydicky. Just because they noted a call on that day and just happen to pop "PPI" against it, does not confirm that a "requirement/means and needs" was carried out. Lots of companies have been fined for not giving full details of policies over the phone so perhaps a copy of the script that was used to sell you the policy should also be requested.

 

They should be able to back up that log with a transcript/recording of the call.

[BelstarBomb]

Hi Guys,

 

Already done even though they said that they won't respond as they believe the matter to be closed.

 

I'll just make sure that I enclose a copy with my complaint to the FOS.

 

Anyway, thanks again - have a great weekend.

 

No doubt the forums will be like a ghost town on Sunday at 3!

[BelstarBomb]

Hi Guys,

 

Just received a letter from the court with the Judge replying 'No direction is needed' and that the letter has been placed on the court file. If you remember I had sent her a copy of the Res Judicata letter that was sent to Restons.

 

What exactly does that all mean?

 

Cheers,

 

Bel

[diddydicky]

to quote the OFT

 

If the person was self employed- unemployed or in an occupation where they could not have benefitted from the PPI then they were likely to have been mis sold the PPI

[BelstarBomb]

Hi Dicky,

 

I know! What they also haven't answered or thought of, is if I knew I had it at the time, when I was made redundant, why didn't I use it instead of getting into the mess that I did?

 

Still waiting to hear back from them but I don't suppose that they are going to make it easy for me even at this stage.

 

Bel

[BelstarBomb]

Hi All,

 

Have been away for a while and come back to cool looking CAG website. Who ever did the work - well done!

 

Anyway I hope that all is well with you all?

 

Just got back in to receive another letter from Restons.

 

In short, they have said that they hold the true agreement and have supplied another copy for me. They confirm that it was double sided and that it includes the T&C's after which the signature box is situated.. It also states that as the bank did not ask me to sign a prospective credit agreement and hence Sec 59 of the act has no application.

 

It also states the following

 

"Below the signature box (0n the doc that you signed) appears the following wording: 'This agreement is also subject to the Card Conditions of Use, which accompany it and the reference to conditions in this agreement are references to conditions in the card conditions of use'. There is no requirement for the card conditions of use to be physically contained in the document which you signed - reference to them satisfies the requirements under the act. A proforma of these t&c's is included in this letter and as you will see, clause 2.6 of the card conditions of use, sets the assumptions involved in the calculation of the total charge for credit.

 

The enclosures to this letter demonstrate the credit agreement was properly executed within the meaning if the act and the purpose of this letter is to formally request you to withdraw your defence and concede the claim. Continuation of these proceedings will increase legal costs which our client will seek full recovery of (in accordance with its contractual rights) in the event it succeeds"

 

Firstly, there is no response to my last letter in which I pointed out that PPI is included in the amounts that they are attempting to recover and neither has the OC responded so far to my request for a transcript of the alleged conversation.

 

Secondly, they have not responded to my 'res judicata' letter.

 

Guys, I would appreciate your thoughts as to the best and most effective way to respond.

 

many thanks,

 

Bel

[diddydicky]

the terms and conditions would not have needed to be contained within the signature document and could indeed be referred to in another document- however the "other document" must have been together with the signature document at the time that you signed it

[citizenB]

and of course there is still the question regarding the PPI. Have you had a read of the following ..

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?243487-MBNA-v-LYNNE-THORIUS-SOLICITORS-OPTIMA-LEGAL-SERVICES

 

The full transcript of the Lyn Thorius case and other interesting information.