Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour.

di3004 · 18 June 2011 at 4:20PM

This is a rather complex case, which have been with the adjudicator since 2009.

Marshallka you will know about this one and helped me big time and throughout, thank you.:)

As the broker dissolved in 2006, I have been going all directions with this, it was suggested to go the underwriter direction Hamilton Insurance, but the adjudicator recently came back and said they are unable to establish a relationship from the broker to the insurer, despite sending the adjudicator the documents which states this.

So its now gone over to HFC, tried saying to the adjudicator a long time ago that these had involvement on the loan before it was paid out in July 2004.

This is now to be moved on to the ombudsman for a review, and the adjudicator emailed to confirm that he got in touch with HFC yesterday, and HFC said they had no involvment in the loan/ppi whatsoever (fair enough).
Then the adjudicator said to supply him with concrete evidence that Click Finance did not sell the PPI.

Now this have come to a new light, because yesterday due to this I was searching through old paperwork and came across the copy of the Click Finance Application form.
All details of my and hubby, address/DOB, amount of loan required, they have down £21K over 240 months.
No PPI ticked on the application form at all.
Now this was signed and dated on the 16 July 2004.

Click Finance then put us in touch with Endeavour, we went through the loan of as stated on the application form - £21K.

Endeavour then said both me and hubby will be receiving a telephone call where we both have to speak in order for the loan to go ahead, and this was HFC, they also said (as proved on the paperwork) if we required more funds is to contact them). This paperwork was signed for on the 26th by them as its a copy of their own paperwork we received within a SAR.

So on the 30 July the loan was in the bank, then the same day the loan agreement was sent from Endeavour, I remember because it was my birthday lol, loan amount £21K, Single PPI of just under £3K over 300months (Yes so stupid not to notice this, so laid back then):o.
In light of this though and finding the application form from the broker yesterday this is where we noticed the difference in the loan term.

So with not knowing much about ppi then, we just obviously assumed ppi was part of the loan as shown on the agreement, so the months were expanded because of the ppi, so so stupid I know not to question this, but then we did use to think it was part of the loan.

So I have now passed on all the details to the adjudicator yesterday, see if something is amiss here.

marshallka · 18 June 2011 at 5:27PM

Sorry you are still having trouble with this one Di.

SO you have to have actual proof of them doing this then. This is so wrong as they know that a consumer would not be able to provide that in all fairness but there are LOADS on here that have had it happen this way.

It sounds so much like our Firstplus loan. We applied (as they said via broker) and our application was over 10 years (120 MONTHS) with NO PPI.... there were questions whereby we had to tick and sign that we had read and understood all the literate for the PPI and we left them blank because we did not want their PPI.

The next thing we had was the actual agreement NOW OVER 160 months (because they added PPI which we did not want) and it was TYPED in) and this was actually Firstplus that added it. I then telephoned FIrstplus to query the extra months and the PPI added and was told that without having PPI I could not have the loan. It was FIRSTPLUS that actually closed the PPI deal though. We never received any details whatsoever on the ppi.

I know what you mean about actual proof of this though as FOS only ever agree with whatever the firm tells them. They are obviously more credible than the consumer.... it stinks Di.

di3004 · 18 June 2011 at 5:47PM

marshallka wrote: »

Sorry you are still having trouble with this one Di.

SO you have to have actual proof of them doing this then. This is so wrong as they know that a consumer would not be able to provide that in all fairness but there are LOADS on here that have had it happen this way.

It sounds so much like our Firstplus loan. We applied (as they said via broker) and our application was over 10 years (120 MONTHS) with NO PPI.... there were questions whereby we had to tick and sign that we had read and understood all the literate for the PPI and we left them blank because we did not want their PPI.

The next thing we had was the actual agreement NOW OVER 160 months (because they added PPI which we did not want) and it was TYPED in) and this was actually Firstplus that added it. I then telephoned FIrstplus to query the extra months and the PPI added and was told that without having PPI I could not have the loan. It was FIRSTPLUS that actually closed the PPI deal though. We never received any details whatsoever on the ppi.

I know what you mean about actual proof of this though as FOS only ever agree with whatever the firm tells them. They are obviously more credible than the consumer.... it stinks Di.

Cheers Marshallka and thanks again for your input.

Yes it does sound like what with happened to yours.
And yep it does stink.

I just wish I found these details before, I am kicking myself, yet it may not make any difference as such, but hoping maybe.......just maybe the ombudsman will take everything into consideration.

Yesterday was the first contact to HFC from the adjudicator dealing with our complaint, he said he only has their word verbally at the moment, so afterwards when finding the application that Click Finance did not add the ppi I emailed it through to him.

I will keep you posted, yet can't see it going any further to be honest, and sorry you had to go through all that as well. x

marshallka · 18 June 2011 at 5:56PM

So I have now passed on all the details to the adjudicator yesterday, see if something is amiss here

Just testing this what Dunstonh said about how to quote in sections....... but on this bit here....
I just hope you get them Di. This is deception but it seems they get away with it over and over again. FOS must know it goes on and the FSA and obviously turn a blind eye. I just hope that they help with yours though.

di3004 · 18 June 2011 at 5:59PM

marshallka wrote: »

Just testing this what Dunstonh said about how to quote in sections....... but on this bit here....
I just hope you get them Di. This is deception but it seems they get away with it over and over again. FOS must know it goes on and the FSA and obviously turn a blind eye. I just hope that they help with yours though.

Thank you Marshallka x;)

marshallka · 18 June 2011 at 6:40PM

di3004 wrote: »

Thank you Marshallka x;)

I tell you what Di, it will be a case soon whereby we as consumers will have to have a disclaimer when we make a phone call to any finance firm and have a speech ready to say

"some of my calls may be recorded for FOS or future legal action purposes just in case it comes to light that you have tried to rip me off in the future"...... its so wrong that they want PROOF when they must have an idea and a good sense that consumers have been ripped off for years by these firms. The firms have no proof of otherwise but they are the ones they side with. I have said it before and I will say it again and its NOT paranoia, I feel they all work for each other.... the firms, FSA and FOS. They have let a few "wins" through just for show that "we are the unbiased"....yeah, right!!!

di3004 · 18 June 2011 at 7:39PM

Yes Exactly Marshallka, I agree with you.

Found some info below as well, couldn't say it was in relation to mine thought because as we know the broker did dissolve.

http://www.johnpughschambers.co.uk/Overview_PPI_Litigation.htm

Brokers

If the PPI is sold by a broker the lender bears no liability for the mis-selling unless the credit agreement is regulated. In the case of a regulated agreement Section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act will often make the lender liable for antecedent negotiations by the broker.

Always check the Broker is solvent – a lot have liquidated to avoid these claims.

A spin off of PPI litigation may arise where the lender has paid the broker a commission which has not been declared either as to existence (secret commission) or as to amount (undisclosed commission). Because a broker owes a fiduciary duty to a borrower (arising from the relationship of principal and agent) the broker should pay the commission to the borrower if the borrow did not give informed consent to the broker to receive it.
If the broker is in liquidation an action may be brought against the lender who paid the commission for procuring the broker’s breach of fiduciary duty. There is no fiduciary duty owed by the lender direct to the borrower.

marshallka · 18 June 2011 at 8:32PM

di3004 wrote: »

Yes Exactly Marshallka, I agree with you.

Found some info below as well, couldn't say it was in relation to mine thought because as we know the broker did dissolve.

http://www.johnpughschambers.co.uk/Overview_PPI_Litigation.htm

Brokers

If the PPI is sold by a broker the lender bears no liability for the mis-selling unless the credit agreement is regulated. In the case of a regulated agreement Section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act will often make the lender liable for antecedent negotiations by the broker.

Always check the Broker is solvent – a lot have liquidated to avoid these claims.

A spin off of PPI litigation may arise where the lender has paid the broker a commission which has not been declared either as to existence (secret commission) or as to amount (undisclosed commission). Because a broker owes a fiduciary duty to a borrower (arising from the relationship of principal and agent) the broker should pay the commission to the borrower if the borrow did not give informed consent to the broker to receive it.
If the broker is in liquidation an action may be brought against the lender who paid the commission for procuring the broker’s breach of fiduciary duty. There is no fiduciary duty owed by the lender direct to the borrower.

I tried that section with Firstplus and got knocked back by their MANAGER in an email saying that section 56 cca (I used section 75 in my letter) does not to credit agreements. In fact I think I still have the email saved.

You could try it though!!! But maybe not as it says about the broker being solvent and CLick are not are they???? Now we know why brokers are liquidating.

http://www.tameside.gov.uk/consumer/advice/infopack/chapter3

di3004 · 18 June 2011 at 9:25PM

marshallka wrote: »

I tried that section with Firstplus and got knocked back by their MANAGER in an email saying that section 56 cca (I used section 75 in my letter) does not to credit agreements. In fact I think I still have the email saved.

You could try it though!!! But maybe not as it says about the broker being solvent and CLick are not are they???? Now we know why brokers are liquidating.

http://www.tameside.gov.uk/consumer/advice/infopack/chapter3

Thanks again Marshallka

Will have to have a good think on this one.
I have until 30 June via FOS, they did extend the time though, it was originally 16 June.;)

Yeah no wonder brokers are liquidating.

di3004 · 18 June 2011 at 9:48PM

Marshallka, this is the letter we received from the Adjudicator, no wonder he cannot establish a relationship between them lol, nothing mentioned of HFC on this one, which is why he then said to move over to these again.

Dear Mr & Mrs

Your complaint about Click Financial trading as (Click Finance)/Hamilton Insurance.

I refer to previous correspondence regarding the above complaint.

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is not free to consider every complaint referred to it. I am sorry to tell you that this complaint does not appear to be one that we can consider.

The complaint concerns the sale of Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) Policy which was sold to you by Click Finance Ltd (Click) in July 2004, to run alongside a loan with Endeavour Personal Finance.

We have been unable to investigate your complaint against Click because the sale of the PPI by intermediaries, such as Click have only been regulated since January 2005.

Your complaint against Click is not within jurisdiction of this service.

I advised you that we were investigating the possibility of raising your concerns with the Insurance company who actually provided the cover under this policy (The Underwriter). We have established that the Underwriter of your policy is Hamilton Insurance Company Limited.

In order to conclude that Hamilton is responsible for the sale of your policy, we needed it to be satisfied that Click was acting as an Agent of Endeavour when selling the policy. We would then need to determine that Endeavour was acting as an Agent of Hamilton.

However, having loked at the original sales papers available, we have been unable to conclude that Hamilton can be held responsible for the sale of your policy.

I say this because Click acted as a Credit Broker when arranging the loan and Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) for you. In the terms & conditons of your Endeavour Credit Agreement, a copy of which I enclose, it specifically states that Credit Brokers used during the transaction are acting agents of the borrower and Endeavour does not accept any responsibility for any action or any advice provided by the Credit Broker.

In view of the above, I have been unable to determine that Click was acting as an Agent of Endeavour selling the policy. As such we have been unable to conclude that there was a relationship between Click/Endeavour and Hamilton.

Because of this, I do not believe we can consider your complaint further.
I appreciate that this is likely to come as a disappointment to you. I know this is not the outcome you were hoping for. But hope my explanation has been helpful in setting out clearly why I have taken this view.

However, if you disagree with how I have reached my conclusions, please write and tell me by the 16 June 2011, setting out your reasons and including any evidence that you have not already provided, and that you think is important in this case.
Could you please let me know now if you plan to reply fully but do not think you will be able to meet that deadline.

As we explain in our leaflet your complaint and the Ombudsman, Consumers have the right to ask an Ombudsman to review the opinion that the complaint cannot be considered further. But if we do not hear from you by 16 June 2011 we will assume that you have decided not to pursue the complaint further.

Yours sincerely

Adjudicator.

marshallka · 19 June 2011 at 9:04AM

Di, Hamilton were linked to HFC Trust LImited

Appointed representatives / Tied agents: Previously attached to:

202671 - Hamilton Insurance Company Limited

Please click hereto see Appointed representatives / Tied agents currently attached to this firm
NameIMDTAFirm reference number
EffectiveFromTo

Endeavour Personal Finance Limited 403514 23/10/2006 01/11/2007

HFC Trust Limited 203422 01/07/1994 01/11/2007

HSBC Finance Ltd Y 416933 14/01/2005 01/11/2007

Could this be where the problem is and that it is HFC TRUST LIMITED and not the other registered Firm being HFC Bank LImited. Where are they sending correspondence to in regards to HFC? Do you have an address?

Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour.

Comments

Categories

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