Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[AndyPandy]

Last year I met a chap who wanted to reclaim the PPI premiums supporting a personal loan even though he admitted that he had asked the bank to include PPI and had made a claim on the policy when he lost his job!

Could you explain to we non-British what you are talking about with this PPI/Liability stuff?

It stands for Payment Protection Insurance, it was billions of £'s of mis selling of protection insurance against loans and credit cards. It was supposed to protect you against losing your job the insurance would pay the loan / credit card premiums.

The problem with it were many and varied

wouldn't pay out if you were self employed, but they'd add it to loans without checking you were eligible,
Wouldn't pay out if you were in receipt of work based sickness benefits,
it was added on when people didn't actually work (ie were pensioners),
in some cases only covered you for the first 5 years of a 10 year loan,
the premiums were higher then you could actually reclaim,
In the first year or so of paying a loan with PPI the loan premiums actually went to paying off the insurance. Which meant if you wanted to redeem the loan early hardly any of the premiums paid actually went to the loan so you still owed about what you'd taken out, plus interest.
People were told it was compulsory to have it.

Basically, people who signed you up for the loans / cards were paid a bonus if they got you to sign up to PPI, so in lots of cases they just ticked the box on the loan application and got you to sign it without even asking if you wanted it or just told you you had to have it to get the loan.

Huge mis selling scandal.

[SteveUK]

Back in the day, with credit products, banks used to cross sell payment protection insurance. The idea being to cover the repayments if you were fired / I'll etc.

Try were overpriced , rarely have any protection and were often sold under pressure to people.

It all unraveled a while back. There are now loads of small claims companies offering to recoup this product under the banner it wasn't a suitable product.

[littleFred]

The very worst thing about PPI is the irritating TV adverts that badger us to sign up with a company who promise us we "could be owed up to £7000" and will organise refunds of mis-sold PPIs. They do this for a fee, of course, which seems to be about 30% of the refund.

GOOFies quickly discovered that the refund went to the policyholder, who was then expected to honour the contract they had with the PPI refund company and cough up the 30% of the windfall. Naturally, GOOFies are reluctant to do this, and there are occasional pleas for, "Help, I'm being chased."

[SteveUK]

Indeed. In true goodfy style, they are expecting these companies to work for nothing.

[#six]

I had PPI many years ago. I was made redundant and claimed on the PPI. Got my mortgage paid for 9 months until I found another job. I've heard of some people who were in the same position as me who then went on to claim their payments back and succeeded. It seems many banks aren't even bothering to dispute claims as its cheaper to just pay out. My view is that since I got the benefit of the PPI, it would be immoral if not illegal to claim the money back. Morals being somewhat lacking in the FMOTL arena, they have no problems with that.

[longdog]

When my ex and me took out a mortgage we were sold a PPI policy each with each covering half of the monthly repayment which seems sort of logical as we were both working and both earning about the same wage. If one of us lost our job then the worker would pay half and the insurance would pay half... Or so we thought.

When we got the actual documents many months later it turned out (hidden deep in the small print) that if one of us was unemployed the policy wouldn't pay out because the other was working and if we both lost our jobs both policies would pay only up to a combined limit which was... Wait for it... Half the mortgage payments. There was no combination of circumstances by which we could claim the whole monthly mortgage payment.

We cancelled immediately we realised we'd been fleeced and eventually got all of our premiums back but only after threatening to sue the fuckers for lying to us and selling us an utterly useless policy.

[Normal Wisdom]

Last year I met a chap who wanted to reclaim the PPI premiums supporting a personal loan even though he admitted that he had asked the bank to include PPI and had made a claim on the policy when he lost his job!

Could you explain to we non-British what you are talking about with this PPI/Liability stuff?

Sorry. I think the previous posts have covered it so the short version is that a huge industry has built up around small claims companies inviting people to try to reclaim the premiums for Payment Protection Insurance that customers may have unwittingly been charged (with the claims company skimming off a healthy percentage).

The idiot that I encountered, knew very well that he had had PPI in fact he had asked for it to be added to his loan agreement. What's more he had actually made a claim on the insurance when he lost his job. Even then he still thought he should be entitled to claim back his premiums.

[Firthy2002]

Statute barring works in both directions...

[FatGambit]

Yeah try explaining that to one of these morons.

Me: You've spent 5 years denying this £27k debt, but want to claim back the £7k PPI?
Idiot friend: Yeah
Me: You do realise that by making a PPI claim, you are acknowledging the debt?
Idiot friend: "blank look".

[letissier14]

This guy is filming a police station and then takes the freeman route when questioned

https://youtu.be/kUO2oNz5m3I

[Skeleton]

This guy is filming a police station and then takes the freeman route when questioned

https://youtu.be/kUO2oNz5m3I

Another British YouTube lawyer learns "Am i being detained" may work in the USA but it has no meaning in the UK. Good video, the police should be a bit more "direct" with people like Ceylon and Tom IMHO but they know who they are dealing with so they let them vent.

[Firthy2002]

I reckon he staged the whole thing. His vague answers and abrasive tone did not help.

[SteveUK]

For any wood be fmotl, Denning explained in easy to digest sentences.

Our adjudicator didn’t recommend that the complaint should be upheld. She explained that a promissory note is effectively an IOU – a promise to pay in the future. The judgment Mrs T referred to meant that a promissory note is binding on the debtor, not the creditor. What’s more, a promissory note can only be used if the creditor agrees.

[url][http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... 108279/url]

They never learn.

[SteveUK]

Added correct link


http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... eID=108279

[Normal Wisdom]

I reckon he staged the whole thing. His vague answers and abrasive tone did not help.

Of course he did. He simply went "filming with his son" and happened to decide to film a police station and passing police cars "for his own purposes" and of course never dreamt that the Police might be a interested in what the f**k he is doing. I can't wait to see all the other films he has made "for his own purposes" outside the butchers, the dry cleaners and the library.

Of course a cynic (like me) might think that he went to the police station in order to provoke a response so that he could show off his expert knowledge of the law gleaned from countless YT videos. The "am I being detained?" and requests for a "supervisor" reeks of those American traffic stop videos (when did we ever use the term supervisor in relation to UK Police?).

Now that's all pathetic enough but to use his kid as part of the ruse is despicable.

[katiHWB]

I feel sorry for the kid myself ... what sort of eejit goes out of their way to force a confrontation like that when they've got a child with them The poor lad's gotta be traumatised

[PeanutGallery]

I reckon he staged the whole thing. His vague answers and abrasive tone did not help.

Of course he did. He simply went "filming with his son" and happened to decide to film a police station and passing police cars "for his own purposes" and of course never dreamt that the Police might be a interested in what the f**k he is doing. I can't wait to see all the other films he has made "for his own purposes" outside the butchers, the dry cleaners and the library.

He's learned everything from American videos and doesn't understand that the American legal system and the protections under the constitution don't apply anywhere outside of America. His request for a supervisor and questions in regard of being detained are irrelevant under UK law. He was looking for a confrontation and the problem is he got one.

My first impression led me to consider that if the police took a view that he was a harmless crank, they might have just allowed him to walk away, but then I considered the police role, they have a wider duty of care and so can't actually do that, they need to satisfy themselves that he is harmless and that he isn't going to cause a larger incident. I would be critical of the use of the phrase "terrorism and such" as used by the officer, it is too vague and frankly to people who are looking for an argument that will escalate things. It's better not to mention terrorism or security because those do seem to escalate matters.

[SteveUK]

Fmotl kits now on Amazon - I kid you not

https://www.amazon.com/Sovereign-Citize ... 3002860109

[katiHWB]

Fmotl kits now on Amazon - I kid you not

https://www.amazon.com/Sovereign-Citize ... 3002860109

I love the first review

My experience with this item leads me to conclude that it is a sort of an impromptu IQ test.

Start with an average IQ: 100. Then subtract 10 IQ points if you think, as this product claims, that 1) there is any such thing legally as a Sovereign Citizen, 2) that the USA is now a Corporation, not a Nation; 3) that the Court system is somehow only an "Admiralty Court;" 4) that fringe on a flag has any significance; 5) that Judges and Lawyers make millions of dollars railroading innocent patriots; 6) that the Bar that governs lawyers in each state is really a "British Admiralty Registry" or some such nonsense; 7) that the authorities can only have jurisdiction over you if you allow them to; that you don't need a driver's license of license plates to drive on public roads if you claim you are not driving but "traveling;" 9) that there is a legal distinction between you as a living breathing person and the "straw man" the authorities can regulate; 10) that you can bill police and courts thousands of dollars for your time if detained, or have them arrested for kidnapping...

Considering a real IQ test can be expensive, this product is a relative bargain.

[SteveUK]

I'm tempted to buy one just for the heck of it....