Black Horse and Me outside now.

[lookinforinfo]

Will you find that there is a difference between "refusing to send" and "not

sending"? I read refusal as meaning the data controller has written to say that he will not be complying with your request because...

rather than he has not got round to it yet. I know from your point of view

that either way, you do not get what you wanted, but the application of

the law often deals in semantics. I am not trying to put you off, rather I

am making sure that you have already looked at that sort of angle before

splashing the cash.

[emma S]

Has Anyone Got Their Charges Refunded From Black Horse Yet?

[louiboy]

Hi Emma I'm not chasing bank charges on this thread. Black Horse are pursuing me for an alleged debt.

 

LFI: I accept you point on the difference between outright refusal and not responding because we can't be bothered. I will make sure my summons is correctly termed for the court. It's on hold for a day or two.

 

This morning I received a response from the Data Controller in London. With my LBA to Black Horse in Cardiff allowing 7 days to comply I also sent a duplicate to the Data Controller in London. I suspected my letters were not being processed in Cardiff. This letter confirms my requests were being ignored or filed under B for bin.

 

I received this reply. The first response ever!

 

From the Data Controller in London

 

Thank you for your recent enquiry Blah, Blah.

 

Having checked our records, I can confirm that we have not received a request from you previously requesting this information and your recent letter is the first request that we have received. There is not reason for us not to provide you with this personal information and had we received a request the information would have been sent to you.

Also lots of forms to fill in and some old rope about not being obliged to comply under s.7 unless supplied with reasonable information as to satisfy the identity of the person.

 

My original request was sent to BH Cardiff on the 10th of October and delivered by recorded delivery on the 11th October. I have sent 6 recorded delivery letters to BH in Cardiff and received no responses. That's now 51 days from delivery.

 

They have sufficient information as to my identity to proceed with Court action. It's bit rich when they now say we have insufficient information as to my identity for the Data Protection Act request. This letter from the Data Controller and failure to supply under the CCA show a remarkable display of incompetence from Black Horse in Cardiff.

 

Letter on the way back to BH London today explaining. (not the exact wording)

 

They have sufficient information as to my identity. Please consult with your solicitor in Glasgow. I remind you it was BH who started the legal action

 

A properly documented request for information under the Data Protection Act was sent 10th Oct. It's not my problem if the letter was not relayed from Cardiff. I have proof of delivery. Potential court action for delivery and notification of the Information Commissionaire.

 

They have also breached the CCA and are currently being investigated by Trading Standards.

 

The debt is statute barred under the Prescription and Limitations Act 1973.

 

Hopefully this should wake them up to the fact they are "Flogging a dead Black Horse".

 

I also CCA'd Direct Legal & Collections at ta later date. They have responded twice that they are "An agency collecting of behalf of BH and the account has not been assigned over to them and they are not obliged to comply with my CCA request." Is this correct?

 

Direct Legal & Collections have failed to supply full disclosure of the information they hold. They have sent some computer records and a statement of account. I have a letter from DLC dated last March. I believe copies of correspondance they have sent should also be included in the request. The 40 days expires on Xmas Eve. Would it be prudent to leave them alone for the time being. Then format a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office

 

 

Useful to others? In my letter from DLC they have taken the trouble to explain.

 

Hillesden Securities is trading as Direct Legal & Collections, and therefore is not a third party but in fact the same company.

[Guest The Terminator]

(3) A data controller is not obliged to comply with a request under this section unless he is supplied with such information as he may reasonably require in order to satisfy himself as to the identity of the person making the request and to locate the information which that person seeks.

 

Taken from the DPA(1998) (S7)

 

I think personally this works both ways.A DCA can ring up and who is to know that they are who they say they are which leads to a stalemate situation.So I have now got into the habit of asking them to identify themselves which usually ends with the phone being put down on me.

[lookinforinfo]

I wonder if the London data controller checked the records of the Cardilff

Office? The information you have given them should be more than

sufficient to satisfy a Court about your identity.

 

If you sent DLC the request under s.77 of the CCA, then they are correct, since it only applies to the creditor. You can of course send an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), though it sounds as if you have. You can write back specifying what it is they have not they sent you under the Data Protection Act, reminding them of any breaches committed.

 

PS Many DCAs seem to be jumping on the dual identity bandwagon.

This makes it more difficult to elucidate the correct company to serve

papers on, in the event of legal action being necessary. As you are not

in that position, there is not a problem, but it may be something to

reflect on should things change in the future. Also it could be that you

have not got what you want from DCL , because they are held by

Hillesden.

[louiboy]

LFI: CCA only applies to creditor. Turns out that Direct Legal & Collections are the creditor.

Black Horse recently sent a response to my LBA for the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) I sent them. There was no mention of the current court case included. I wrote back asking specifically about the legal action.

 

Today a letter arrived from Black horse head office.

"The debt was sold to DLC in April 2000 and we are no longer responsible for the debt. DLC are responsible for the debt and are not acting as agents for BH."

Direct Legal & Collections have falsely represented themselves as Black Horse on Summary Cause court documents. They have also avoided the CCA request by pretending to be agents of BH.

 

Just what I wanted. The debt is safely statute barred and falsely represented. The Judge should be able to dismiss the case at the next proof.

 

Are DLC now in default of the CCA by failing to respond within 12 workings days and heading towards committing an additional criminal offence? They pretended to be agent of BH. Certainly not fit to hold a Consumer Credit License.

 

DLC have until Xmas eve to fully disclose on their S.A.R - (Subject Access Request). Whatever they send should be incriminating. I look forward to the postman arriving. A partially complete S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) shows they have been processing incorrect information for the last 6 years.

 

This incorrect information has caused Nolan's solicitors to send personal information to the wrong address. They have recently responded to a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) request. They have attempted to avoid a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) by quoting s.35 of the Data Protection Act (were solicitors and exempt). Part b of section 35 states there are no exemptions during legal action and there's a similar paragraph in s.7 (no exemptions during legal action) I now intend to report the solicitors to the Information Commissioner and the law society. I believe they have a duty of care to verify information and facts before acting. They are also a specialist debt collection agency. The solicitors are acting similar to DCA's and have sent a few letters to bully me into giving up the case.

 

With BH out of the picture this allows time to pursue Direct Legal & Collections for distress and damages. They have breached several sections of the Data Protection Act and acted fraudulently.

 

The debt was not properly assigned. They have processed incorrect information for 6 years and disclosed it to a third party, who then disclosed it some more.

 

Processing without consent?

 

s.10 Causing substantial distress and damage?

 

s.13 Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements?

 

Most of the Principles?

1. processed fairly and lawfully (used for unlawful purpose)
   
2. obtained for specified and lawful purposes (used for unlawful purpose)
   
3. accurate and, where necessary, kept up-to-date (inaccurate data)
   
4. processed in accordance with the subject's rights (ignored my rights)

Where do I go from here?

 

What appeared to be simply a matter of turning up in court and arguing with BH over PPI payments and statute barred has escalated very quickly. Think I want to purse DLC 1 step at a time.

[lookinforinfo]

Included in the sar from BH should be the deed of assignment.

Looks like your personal liability action has just changed from BH to DLC.

 

Why on earth did DLC put BH on the summons? Did they hope that you would cave in and avoid going to Court? If there was a statement of truth signed within that summons, that would be contempt of Court-large fine and/or

imprisonment. Just to get out of sending a CCA request? They have lost

total credibility in the Courthouse.

 

BTW if DLC have been processing any of your data during the time you sent

them the CCArequest, that data was processed unlawfully.

 

Not sure what you know about the assigment being not assigned properly-or

are you talking about the BH takeover.

 

Loui, if this is indeed DLCs case, how have DLC and their lawyers described

themselves in Court-acting for BH or DLC-can you remember that far back?

You may be able to ask the stenographer if there was one. If there was

additional misdirection in Court by any of them.........not only that, but

the lawyers surely know they are acting for DLC and not BH.....the plot

thickens.

 

As for disclosing data to 3rd parties-bear in mind that the Act does allow the passing of info when legal business is ongoing .

 

Don't always need consent.

 

If DLC are involved with the 2002 receipt, if they have misrepresented themselves as acting for BH on a Court document, they will have an extremely hard job convincing the Court about the receipt.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if my ten year old goddaughter couldn't win it now.

[louiboy]

There's never been any mention of DLC on any of the court documents or in court. When the solicitors were S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'d the first time, they replied "please refer the SAR to BH".

Court documents are made out in the name of BH (Cardiff). Note attached that the solicitors are acting as agents for BH.

 

The debt not being assigned/processed properly.

When it was believed the debt was from BH, TS were looking for the default notice and relevant paperwork. My credit file appears to be clean.

 

Now that DLC are in the frame where's the letter announcing they own the debt and other paperwork that's never been received. Where's the proof that they now actually own the debt. BH have provided documents and letters that they do not own the debt and sold it in April 2000. The also state they are not processing information and the information sent came from archive. ie: not active on the system.

 

The figures produced in court match the partial SAR from DLC and also don't tally with the original loan amount and debt information from BH.

 

Why on earth did DLC put BH on the summons?

Just guessing. In 2000 Chartered Trust were bought by LLoyds to become BH perhaps there is some confusion in the paperwork from this time. DLC have indicate twice in writing that they are agents. Don't suppose that matters now BH have firmly declared them as the legal owners and provided proof BH have no legal claim.

 

Alternatively they decided to throw the dice and take a chance.

On the court notice board there were a few entries from the solicitors where they had won by default. The odds of a summons going undefended are high. Looks as if DLC took the chance the debt would go undefended. They would have been unaware that the PPI and charges were in dispute with BH in 2000.

 

Have also just discovered why this summons was served in person. It's their second attempt to bring me to court. A postal summons was issued to the wrong address in September. Don't know where that ended up.

 

I have a letter from DLC saying they would be instructing the solicitors to proceed with legal action last March. I've been saving it because I was unsure what to do with it.

Read somewhere that only the original creditor can start legal action.

[lookinforinfo]

While the original creditor can start legal action, it is also the case that subsequent creditors [but only creditors, not their agents] can also start actions.

 

It would help if you can secure a copy of the deed of assignment from BH-it

should have been included with the sar documents.

 

Suggest you tell TS to put everything on hold at the very least as they might not be best pleased if you delay telling them all this and they carry on

against BH.

 

You are saying that DLC have presumably paid the Court fees themselves

on behalf of BH. Any way of finding that out?And that the lawyers are billing DLC instead of BH? Would

they not had to have been instructed by BH? Or have they known all along

the true involvement of DLC? It just gets more and more murky.

[louiboy]

While the original creditor can start legal action, it is also the case that subsequent creditors [but only creditors, not their agents] can also start actions.

What bit of legislation does that come from? Been looking for is. My defence surprise when it was believed DLC were an agent.

 

The solicitors have apparently paid the court fees. They have a block booking fees scale for pursuing. £200 for undefended then sliding scale for defence. Info from the solicitors contains a reference number for DLC accounts. That and the DLC letter indicate DLC instructed the action. S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) disclosure from DLC should contain this information. Quick word with the court clerk may be of use.

 

Option A: DLC debt agents no entitlement to start legal action

Option B: DLC debt owners and hiding the fact

 

It's definitely dodgy. Whatever way the bottle spins.

 

I'll get back to BH for the deed of assignment and let TS know about the new developments. This looks as if it's being served on a plate for them.

[Sparkie1723]

Louiboy Hi there,

 

I've allready posted some info about Black Horse heres a bit more could help you a bit.

Lloyds Tsb bought Chartered Trust in Dec 2000, They then set up Black Horse Ltd who the registered with Companies House in July 2001 and "took over " all Chartered Trusts business thats quite legal, but what they didn't do was register with the ICO as a Data Processor, they used Charted trusts registration BUT thats Illegal and a crimainal offence under the Data Protection Act licenses are NOT transferrable. They used this license until Sept 2001 and the they registered as Black Horse Ltd to process data BUT they gave the wrong office address so they were registerd incorrectly and did not notify the ICO of the change until Nov 2006. again an offence under the Data Protection Act failing to notify changes within 28 days of the change.

They are at Last registered correctly but any data they passed about anyone until 2006 has been unlawfully supplied and claims can be made against Black Horse for unblawfully supplying data and that includes Credit Reference agencies. Any one who has had a default registered by Black Horse during this time can write to the Agencises and Demend they remove them and give them these reasons demand it under section 10 of the DPA.

 

Sparkie 1723

[louiboy]

Thanks Sparkie

 

Have put the info aside just in case it becomes relevant. BH have no record of processing any of my information since August 2000 and supplied a letter stating the debt was sold to Direct Legal Collections in April 2000. My credit files are blank except for Cabot who are about to receive some attention,

 

Currently looking forward to my next court appearance in 2 weeks. DLC and their solicitors have taken me to court as BH under false pretences. My only worry is who pays my expenses. Normally the defender/pursuer pays the bill. In this case the real pursuer (DLC) is not named on the court summons.

[Guest The Terminator]

You make some good points there Sparkie and suggest everyone on here hits them with S10 requests and don't think the mib would know what to do.

 

Anyway my interest is Hillesden Securities trading as DLC.I've just looked on one of the letters from them and nowhere on the letter does it say anything about Hillesden Securities and I'm looking at the letter as I type.My point is which one is the data controller I know Hillesden Securities are registered with the IC but in the OP case the debt was brought by DLC so in effect the debt shouldn't have been sold because BH wasn't registered.It's further evidence that the law is being broken and I can't beleive that the finiancial institutions are getting away with it.

[gillytilly]

Good luck louiboy

 

Gilly

[louiboy]

Thanks Gilly

 

All ready for court Friday 19th.

 

Hopefully case dismissed as an incompetent action.

 

I have completed the chain of evidence that the Glasgow Solicitors are acting under the instruction of DLC. They are currently busy satisfying my Data Protection Act request. Their attitude has improved remarkably. The solicitors initially refused to comply, claiming exemptions under s.35 of the Data Protection Act. The same s.35 also forced them to comply.

 

35. - (1) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court.

 

(2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary-

 

(a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or

 

(b) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,

 

or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

Law Society and Information Commissioners Office when the games over.

 

Have been pushing DLC for full compliance on the Data Protection Act. Deadline expired on 24th December 2006 and they responded to my LBA. Threatened them with a bit of court action.

 

Blah, Blah.

 

We have already advised you that the account is not owned by Hillesden Securities Ltd and accordingly, we have no obligation to provide the documentation you have requested under the provisions quoted by you. However as a matter of customer service we would endeavour to comply with such requests.

 

Blah, Blah action in the Scottish courts, all relevant data has been exchanged with your solicitors. Blah, Blah, I do not feel it appropriate to disrupt this process and will allow these proceedings to follow their proper course.

 

Cheap threat about not instigating legal action against Hillesden, inappropriate blah, blah

 

A E Locke

Data Controller.

I'm shocked that the Data Controller is ignorant (or pretending to be ) of their responsibilities. Excellent letter, forwarding to the Information Commissioners Office. The cheeky chappie has already disrupted the legal process. If no dismissal on Friday, we will probably be postponed to another hearing until Hillesden provide the information relevant to my defence.

 

 

Wrote back:

Your compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 has no relationship with any company that you claim to be acting as agent for it is solely the responsibility of Hillesden Securities.

 

You have refused in writing a correctly documented request for information. I believe your actions to be a deliberate attempt to restrict my defence.

 

You correctly point out this account is subject to ongoing legal action. I will now seek approval of the court on the 19th January for issue of a warrant for compliance under Part II S.7 paragraph 9 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Here's hoping the judge will grant the warrant as part of the ongoing court case.

 

I'm also hoping that in light of Hillesden/DLC pretending to be acting on behalf of Black Horse they face a charge for contempt of court.

 

Looking forward to Friday, it can't come soon enough.

[louiboy]

Friday the 19th January court

 

Direct Legal & Collections lawyer opened with a killer speech. We have presented this and that and have a substantial file on the pursuer. We feel that this action has gone on long enough and we respectfully petition the court for decree on behalf of our client. They admitted at this point they were acting on behalf of DLC who were duly appointed agents of Black Horse Ltd.

 

HOLD, HOLD, HOLD until we see the whites of their eyes! FIRE!

 

The defence moves that the case is dismissed as an incompetent and unlawful action. The pursuers named on the court summons are not the legal owners of the debt and have no knowledge of this action in their name. BH have provided evidence that the debt is statute barred and have received no payments or acknowledgement since October 2000.

 

One shocked and stunned looking lawyer. The case is now going to full proof hearing in March. 6 months of ongoing legal action.

 

This is not where I planned to be. On a happy note DLC and their solicitors are even further from where they planned to be. They are now looking for a way out. I'm more than happy to continue.

 

In pursuing this action several breaches of the Data Protection Act and the CCA have been revealed. The judge has indicated he has an interest in the non-compliance of the CCA.

 

Tomorrow I will be forwarding a formal complaint to the Law Society and Information Commissioners Office about the actions of the solicitors. They have sent several letters to the wrong address and revealed my personal information to a third party. The letters I have received from them are of the sort of bullying tactics employed by the DCA's.

 

DLC are about to be reported to OFT, Information Commissioners Office, TS and any other regulatory body available.

 

DLC have failed to fully disclose under the Data Protection Act and the judge explained how I should petition the court for an order to comply Data Protection Act part II s7 p9. 2 minutes after leaving court I forgot what I should be doing with that.

 

Is there anybody familiar with obtaining a court order for Data Protection Act compliance during ongoing legal action? (Scottish procedure)

 

If DLC refuse to back down I will be obtaining counsel for the next appearance. There are to many issues involved now for me to keep track of them. On top of that the rules for proof hearing are reasonably strict and I don't want to make a mistake. If possible I intend to summon the Data Controller and members of staff from DLC. There's evidence of manual intervention that needs to be explained. The more information I can obtain the better my case for pursuing DLC for harassment and breach of the Data protection Act.

[lookinforinfo]

On the one hand you must be pleased with having more than a fighting chance now but disappointed that it has been kicked into the long grass.

Was the Judge surprised by the revelation as well? And is he the same Judge that you had before?

I am difficulty finding all the combinations you are looking for-ie application for Court Order: during legal proceedings;Data Protection Act compliance;

Scotland.

I have been trying in Civil Procedure Rules Scotland- and am getting loads of

things involving the Act of Sederunt. Can you remember if the Judge mentioned that Act?

Also have looked at this site-

 

Advanced Search

 

but am getting hundreds of examples but nothing that looks as if it comes close to your wants. In view of how many possibiliteis there are to choose from, might be an idea to ring them and ask if they could at least narrow the search even if they can't advise the exact example .

[louiboy]

Thanks LFI

 

My head was a bit fluffy in court. Just as well I wrote down everything I needed to say as a statement and read it out.

 

I slightly remember the procedure being called petitioning the court for the extraction of evidence or similar. I'll get a friendly lawyer to sort it out. It's nearly lawyer time. Will try a post in the Scotland legalities section.

 

The judge was the same one from the first visit. They tend to swap around. He did look slightly surprised at the revelation. Not as surprised as the pursing lawyer. Who suddenly realised the alleged pursuers/BH had nothing to do with the case. They have been presenting evidence for sometime as coming from BH. Somebody is in trouble and it's not me. DLC will now be aware that I now require a court order for their compliance of the Data Protection Act. That should give them "food for thought" and I have a few other surprises lined up for them.

 

 

Interestingly as I waited for the case to be called a few summary claims against banks were decreed because the banks didn't turn up to defend. Go get em Joe Public!

[martinhw]

Good on you Louiboy - BH are about to default on our 2 CCA requests and SAR.

[louiboy]

Complaints are out to the Information Commissioners Office for DLC and their lawyers. Law Society has just started to investigate the Glasgow Lawyers (appeared keen). Need to start on Trading Standards and OFT tomorrow. Now busy building a case for harassment, distress and damages.

 

LFI: Have just about sorted out the recovery of documents. I write to the court specifying what documents I want under Chapter 7 Act of Sederant (Scotland).

 

Diligence for recovery of documents

17.1. (1) At any time after a summons has been served, a party may make an incidental application in writing to the sheriff to grant commission and diligence to recover documents.

(2) A party who makes an application in accordance with paragraph (1)

must list in the application the documents which he wishes to recover.

(3) The sheriff may grant commission and diligence to recover those

documents in the list mentioned in paragraph (2) which he considers relevant to the claim.

[louiboy]

Can anybody help with some counting.

Thanks to LFI I've been reading and counting and come to the conclusion the figures on my old credit agreement are wrong. They either do not show the correct amount of the loan or the APR is wrong. This is an agreement from 1998

Heres the deal as on the document.

 

purchase price: 1292.50

deposit: 129.25

Amount credit £1163.25

payments 36 * 49.81 = £1793.16 (APR 24.9%)

 

Heres the deal from a TS calculator.

 

purchase price: 1292.50

deposit: 129.25

Amount credit £1163.25

payments 36 * 44.81 = £1608.84 (APR 24.9%)

 

There's a difference of £184.32. Something must be wrong? Is it the PPI element missing from the amount of credit or is the APR wrong. You can see from the text near the little signature box the PPI is included in the cost of the monthly instalment. However theres no indication to the costs of the PPI. Incidentally the statements show a £7 - £8 payment every month for the PPI, it varies slightly with the balance. Reducing if the account went full term. So what ever the cost was for PPI it attracts interest and wasn't declared in the total amount of credit.

 

Heres 2 alternative calculations that give the same final figure of £1793.16

 

purchase price: 1292.50

deposit: 129.25

Amount credit £1163.25

payments 36 * 49.81 = £1793.16 (APR 35.37% ?)

 

purchase price: 1292.50

deposit: 129.25

Plus PPI £131.85

Amount credit £1295.10

payments 36 * 49.81 = £1793.16 (APR 24.988%)

 

This 2nd calc comes close to explaining the £184.32 difference. Comes close losing £1.80 (rounding errors?).

 

I've worked out the insurance premium is an integrated part of the loan agreement. Every month interest is added for the insurance premium.

 

The way this agreement was presented was with the PPI payments already included in the monthly payment, yet not declared in the total amount of credit. There's no real option not to pay the PPI. Even if you didn't sign the PPI box, you would sign up for the £49.81 per month payment plan.

 

What I want to know are my arguments that the agreement is unenforceable under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act and other legislation?

[mcuth]

Just my guess, but I think the payment differential might have something to do with the initial 6 month no payment period - maybe the interest still added up during that time?

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[louiboy]

The initial period was interest free. About 15 days interest added before the first payment.

 

Had some more research. The APR listed as 24.9 checks out with a calculation in Excel.

In box A2 enter [ =(((((A1/100)+1)^12)-1)*100) ] in box A1 put the monthly interest rate (1.87) and APR is calculated.

 

Michael well guessed. It's possible I've been charged a premium for the 6 month period. That wasn't declared in the original advertisement. Used an other calculator with a delayed payment period.

 

Maybe I've been charged an extra of £5 per month over 36 months for the 6 month interest free period. That could be the extra £180.

 

I'm working on the PPI. The box under the words Payment Protection Plan clearly states that the costs of PPI are included in the monthly premium. I would take that at face value the monthly premium is included in the £49.81.

 

However each month in the statements 0.69% is added to the balance as the insurance premium. ( £7 - £8 ) That's an extra APR of 8.47%.

 

Think I need to build a big spread sheet and calculate the loan period through and see what the difference is between the result and what would appear to be the Total Cost of the Loan. Will it be more than 36 * £49.81.

[mcuth]

The initial period was interest free. About 15 days interest added before the first payment.

 

Had some more research. The APR listed as 24.9 checks out with a calculation in Excel.

In box A2 enter [ =(((((A1/100)+1)^12)-1)*100) ] in box A1 put the monthly interest rate (1.87) and APR is calculated.

 

Michael well guessed. It's possible I've been charged a premium for the 6 month period. That wasn't declared in the original advertisement. Used an other calculator with a delayed payment period.

 

Maybe I've been charged an extra of £5 per month over 36 months for the 6 month interest free period. That could be the extra £180.

 

Some of these "interest free" periods are only interest free if you pay off the full amount in that time - i.e. if you pay £1163.25 within 6 months, then you'll have nothing more to pay, but if you don't pay in full, then interest is calculated on this "interest free" period too.

 

I'm working on the PPI. The box under the words Payment Protection Plan clearly states that the costs of PPI are included in the monthly premium. I would take that at face value the monthly premium is included in the £49.81.

 

That's what it says....

 

However each month in the statements 0.69% is added to the balance as the insurance premium. ( £7 - £8 ) That's an extra APR of 8.47%.

 

It seems to me like they calculate the total monthly payments to include the monthly charge for insurance @ 0.69% - that's how they say that it's included in the £49.81.

 

BTW, was the insurance premium added in the 6 months interest free period too?

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[louiboy]

An update as I attempt to draw the cards for full house. The court case is due for proof early April. Better to train hard and fight easy.

I would take that at face value the monthly premium is included in the £49.81

That does not appear to allow a fair chance to refuse the PPI. Looks as if they charged for it upfront before the agreement was signed.

 

By not signing the PPI box I would have agreed to pay £49.81 per month regardless. When the correct figure should have been about £44.81. There's nothing on the agreement to indicate the amount of PPI and I believe this should be in the Total Charge for Credit. There's no indication of the Total Charge for credit.

 

Finally the spreadsheet is complete. This account only ran for 1 1/2 years and then was given a write off figure and date. Using the figures supplied by Black Horse they have charged an APR figure of 25.49% for the first year. This change was never supplied in writing as per the agreement. Figures verified with the PPI having a 1st year APR of 8.47% as the agreement.

 

Year 2 the APR became 25.34% changed without notification and the PPI APR became 8.99%. Again not notified in writing.

 

Trading Standards are actively involved and becoming hissed off with the lack of response from Black Horse. They have wrote to Black Horse at the Tressillian, Cardiff address several times and not yet received a reply. I also wrote to BH at the same address and received no reply to a CCA and DPA request. BH London replied very quickly to a complaint that I had not received my SAR. They also indicated that was the first time they had contact with me.

 

From the SAR BH sent a statement that they were not the legal owners of the debt and it was sold to DLC in April 2000. The solicitors still claim to be instructed through DLC by Black Horse Limited.

 

I suspect that there is a possibility that legal action may have been started by one of the Black Horse group companies. Separate legal entities. ie: Black Horse personal Finance Ltd or Black Horse Finance Ltd. In the eyes of the law not Black Horse Ltd.