Yes Car Credit PPI REclaim *** Resolved***

[postggj]

I am going to draw up a letter in the form of a witness statement for you to send to DAF

 

That will list questions to per-empt there expected rejection

 

Do you now have a reference number to collate with the claim so they will have no excuse, i believe it will be best to send this letter by special delivery

 

Have you done a schedule of loss on a spread sheet

[ukdarrenfan]

They've given me no reference number, only quoted the agreement number. I've sent them the questionnaire, spreadsheet, copy of the agreement and a copy of the commissions sheet.

[postggj]

The letter you received with the questionable from DAF/ Provident

 

On the header, did it have a reference number saying something like our or your reference

[ukdarrenfan]

No. It only quoted our agreement number, nothing else.

[postggj]

These people realy do know how to frustrate justice and basic customer service

 

You do realise this is a deliberate policy provident have adopted

 

I will draw up a letter for you as suggested and we will now play them at there own game

 

I am afraid you are going to have to wait the eight weeks before proceeding

 

If this gets into court, the judge will dismiss the claim stating we have not allowed provident the opportunity to respond within the 56 days prescribed by law

[persha]

Hi - just seen your thread and its looks I am in same position with a car sale also about 2004.

 

Could you let me know what paperwork you sent them to start the claim.

 

It was when we were desperate for a car and the sales guy told us we could only get the car if we took out PPI which of course we now know is rubbish.

 

It still makes me mad as we had just arrived in the country had young children and it took about £50 our salary every month to pay for something we did not need.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Sharon

 

my thread is here please reply there

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?392272-Yes-Car-Credit-PPI - [dx]

[ukdarrenfan]

These people realy do know how to frustrate justice and basic customer service

 

You do realise this is a deliberate policy provident have adopted

 

I will draw up a letter for you as suggested and we will now play them at there own game

 

I am afraid you are going to have to wait the eight weeks before proceeding

 

If this gets into court, the judge will dismiss the claim stating we have not allowed provident the opportunity to respond within the 56 days prescribed by law

 

I had a feeling I would have to wait. It doesn't surprise me that this is a deliberate policy. I cannot wait to get this shower to court and will most certainly document all of their time wasting.

[postggj]

I will do a template letter so other people can use to stop this time wasting policy adopted by provident

 

They are hoping you will just give up and go away

 

Fat chance on that happening

[ukdarrenfan]

Absolutely no chance of me going away. The appalling way that I've been ignored is just spurring me on. They will barely look at my claim, but file it away for 8 weeks before they send out their standard response. It can only look worse for them when it comes to court..

[ollyhuk]

No, im not going to go away, not now I have discovered they treated others the way they treated me - I will pursue this as far as I can.

[ukdarrenfan]

Well after all the fuss, today we received a reply from DAF. Most of it was your typical standard fob-off. I've attached it so you can see what it says. I note that they haven't acknowledged that this was the second time that I have had to send the claim, nor the fact that it came with a letter before action.

Angie

[ollyhuk]

They obviously have a standard letter with standard clauses as I recognise most of that word for word!

[ukdarrenfan]

But did you read the end paragraph about the allocation of the deposit!

[ollyhuk]

I did, that and their defence of the payment of commissions disturb me somewhat.

 

They seem pretty sure they have covered it all.

[ukdarrenfan]

Can anyone explain to me in plain English what they are waffling on about concerning the commissions please...

[ukdarrenfan]

http://www.out-law.com/page-8927

Don't know if that helps at all with the subject of commissions?

[ukdarrenfan]

http://www.clydeco.com/uploads/Files/Publications/2012/CLYDECO_Hong_Kong_Insurance_e-Newsletter_(Jan_2012).pdf

...and this...as DAFS are supposedly an agent for the insurance company that provided the PPI.

[ukdarrenfan]

I'm sorry if this is going to be a rather large post. I am trying to make sense of this letter so that I can reply to them, but some things are confusing me. This is by no means what I am sending to them, but mostly my ramblings trying to make sense of it. Most of it was a pretty standard reply, but the commissions part is confusing me, as is the deposit. If anyone can help me sort the waffle from the sense I would be very grateful! (their waffle, not mine!)

 

Insurance Products

 

We reject any suggestion that the policies in question were in any way mis-sold. The policies provided valuable cover to help you guard against unforeseen financial incidents, incidents of mechanical failure or the unfortunate circumstances where your car was a total loss. If these events had occurred and were not protected against it would have had a serious impact on your financial standing – the principal of any insurance product. In this instance you had the fortune not to claim under the cover offered.You have provided no specific evidence to support your claim. We maintain the policies were optional and you understood this at the time of purchase. You had the option to refuse the covers and seek alternative cover in the market place; you chose not to do this. You elected to purchase the covers on the day of the transaction.The finance application form completed by you indicates you were employed by ---------. You had been in that position for 11 years and the position was permanent. You were both eligible and suitable for the PPI. DAFS undertook reasonable checks to ensure you were suitable by reviewing the information provided on the documentation completed by you. It would seem fair and reasonable given the nature of the employment disclosed to recommend a policy which covers accident, sickness, unemployment, redundancy, disability and death.

 

You were not there, we were. Just because this was what was meant to be done, does not mean to say that is what happened. I was given no choice as to whether I wanted the insurances. I needed a car; they wouldn’t let me have one unless I took out the insurances, so they were very much not optional. It is well documented that pushy sales people forced customers to take out the insurance and warranties. The BBC Whistleblower documentary showed the practices of Yes Car Credit and also attached is The Yes Car Nightmare which documents this. We were not informed that these policies could be purchased elsewhere, or that we even had a choice in the matter.The information I provided for the Finance Application was to provide you with proof of income as required, I was not told this was to assess my suitability for PPI. Again, it would not have mattered as the ‘optional’ insurances were not discussed any more than being told that if I wanted to have a car I had to have them.

 

In reviewing the documentation provided by you it is clear you came to the showroom prepared and provided us with proof of identification and proof of income. At this point we provided you with the Welcome to Yes Car Credit booklet which explains what will happen and specifically refers to the optional insurance products. You would have filled in the Finance Application Form at that time. We would suggest you therefore had adequate time to read the sales documentation which in our opinion is clear, fair and reasonable.

 

Of course I came to the showroom prepared with both proof of identification and proof of income. You could not go to Yes Car Credit without making an appointment and this is what I was told to bring with me. We do not recall being given a booklet and this is not included in the information from the SAR.

 

Disclosure of Commission

,

You entered into an agreement with DAFS on ..........2002. The agreement is in fact two agreements, sometimes referred to as a multiple agreement. (and this is important, why?) It is treated as two separate agreements by virtue of s. 18(2) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The first is a Conditional Sale Agreement (this I get, it means that the credit has been provided to us for the purpose of buying a car and that it won’t belong to us until it’s paid for) and the second, a fixed sum credit agreement for the optional insurances. (this I also get, it’s a loan agreement to buy the insurances)The fixed sum credit agreement, i.e. the insurance agreement, is a restricted-use debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within sections 11(b) and 12(b) of the Act as the supplier (the insurer) is separate from the creditor (DAFS) whereas the conditional sale agreement is within ss. 11(a) and 12(a) of the Act as the supplier and creditor are the same (DAFS)This is where I am getting confused. Does this actually mean anything or is it just waffle? DAFS provided credit to you in respect of the purchase of a vehicle and merely provided finance to you for the purchase of a payment protection policy (PPI) and other insurances under the agreement. To be clear we were not an agent for you, we were agent for the insurance provider.The supplier (the insurer) is separate from the creditor (DAFS). The insurance part of the agreement was concluded by us on behalf of the insurer with the insurer’s authority and as such the agency was disclosed to your client (???????) and DAFS had no obligation to disclose any commission payments as it was not your agent.

 

(This is where I get stuck. I don’t understand this part. Who paid the commission to who, and is it true that they did not have to disclose it? What are they talking about when they say ‘the agency was disclosed to your client?)

 

Allocation of the Deposit

 

We refute the suggestion that the agreement has been incorrectly constructed as a result of the deposit being applied to the wrong agreement. We would point out that the deposit of £1001 provided by you was not subject to an express agreement to offset that deposit against the cost of the vehicle rather than the cost of the PPI.

 

What! Isn’t it obvious that when you buy a car and pay a deposit, you expect it to be taken off the cost of the car? So are they saying that because we didn’t tell them we specifically wanted the deposit taken from the car they could allocate it where they liked?

Edited June 6, 2013 by ukdarrenfan
No paragraphs

[dx100uk]

use the edit post and put some blank lines and sentence's in please uk.

 

dx

[ukdarrenfan]

use the edit post and put some blank lines and sentence's in please uk.

 

dx

 

 

Ok I've finally managed to do it. For some reason I have to do it the hard way, it keeps going back to one big paragraph otherwise!

Edited June 6, 2013 by ukdarrenfan

[ukdarrenfan]

I also meant to add that in the Customer Declaration, that none of the ticks were made by me. I filled in the Finance form with regards to employer, 3 people we knew as a reference, etc, but those ticks were certainly not mine.

[ollyhuk]

I also meant to add that in the Customer Declaration, that none of the ticks were made by me. I filled in the Finance form with regards to employer, 3 people we knew as a reference, etc, but those ticks were certainly not mine.

 

Thats exactly the same as mine - I signed it, but the sales person ticked the boxes!

[ukdarrenfan]

Is anyone abe to help regarding my commission question? Did they have to disclose it?

[ukdarrenfan]

Anybody? I really need to get this letter written so I can sort out my claim.

[Andybars]

Hi - in the absence of more experienced help - it appears that they are trying to claim that they were acting on behalf of the insurer in selling you an insurance product, not acting as your advisor. As the weren't acting on your behalf they don't believe that they had to disclose the commission to you. If the court accepts that they were not your agent then there would be no need for disclosure. I would however assume that they would have had to tell you at the point of sale that they were acting as agents for the insurer which I would imagine that their paperwork didn't - this is possibly a point worth making. It's probably worth flagging the case for somebody on the legal issues forum to have a look at. Apologies the answer is vague - not my area of expertise and don't want to mislead you that it is. Hopefully experienced help will be along soon