Ppi claim dead end

margymuggins · 21 October 2009 at 12:57PM

Hi can anyone offer advice been trying to claim from G.E.Money Home Finance Ltd(First National Finance)they saying this has no connection with recent ruling against G.E Capital.Bank as it is a seperate company from G.E.Money Home Finance Ltd not so have not been fined
i've received letter today saying it was all stated in the agreement i;e only covers 5yrs and that it would be added to loan and they say it was all optional and we never raised concerns and we fully understood all of information provided with this in mind as you have had the benefit of the policy and will continue until it expires 10 nov 2009 we will not be in a position to consider the policy refund to which we refer when it was taken out so therefore they will not be in a position to consider the policy refund claim They say this is there final response and due to historical nature our complaint does not fall under the jurisdiction of the F.O.S Has anyone had dealings with the above mentioned or could give some good advice of what to do next if anything PLEASE PLEASE SOMEONE HELP as this is where i give up on difficult situations

pinknico · 21 October 2009 at 1:14PM

Call the FOS any way and see if they can take this comlaint further with the actual insurer. I take it this was taken out pre 2005?

PaulinWeston · 21 October 2009 at 2:04PM

If you believe the policy was mis-sold then you should continue with your complaint.

You could write back to them and point out that their argument that you “signed the agreement that showed ppi was optional” is incorrect: The Court of Appeal in HOWARD MARINE AND DREDGING CO. LTD. v. A. OGDEN & SONS (EXCAVATIONS) LTD. [1975 H. No. 4557], establishes that a clause in a contract which states that a signature indicates full acceptance is not valid where it would be unlikely that the customer would have the skill and inclination to go through the fine detail. Moreover, the same case establishes the burden of proof in relation to Misrepresentation Act claims: that a customer should be able to rely on the information given, and that even without an intent to misrepresent, if the consequences of a misrepresentation are such that a customer is disadvantaged then that is enough.

In terms of the limitation - They may well be right that the FOS can't help but I'd try them anyway.

margymuggins · 21 October 2009 at 2:49PM

pinknico wrote: »

Call the FOS any way and see if they can take this comlaint further with the actual insurer. I take it this was taken out pre 2005?

hi thanx yes it was taken out november 2004 initially it was done over phone

margymuggins · 21 October 2009 at 2:58PM

originaly it was done over phone and we just had to sign we were not told it was optional or that it would only cover 5yrs so for next 20yrs we're paying interest on something we no longer have like you say at that time we were definitely lacking knowledge of finer details thanks a lot margy (margymuggins)we are now a lot wiser thanks to M S E and team

Ppi claim dead end

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free