miss sold ppi

-taff wrote: »

So you took it ot the FOS and they upheld your complaint.

Then I assume the company said they wanted an Ombudsman to look at it and the complaint was over turned?

If the unerdriters of the PPI sent a letter to you saying they were providing the PPI, this is not using another company against you, this is proving you knew about it.

Your post is confusing.

hi we requested a dsar from my mortgage company in 2015 and along with it came details of a loan that we took out in june 2005 to get married but the loan had been paid off and we had forgotten that we ever had the loan probably because they were with the same company as my mortgage . anyway moving on when we went through the application for the loan over the phone in 2005 we requested that we did not want ppi . so no medical was done they also sold me life insurance and we already had life insurance in place to cover me also . on receiving the documents we had noticed that a letter in the dsar stating that mr wanted ppi and I hope that this is sufficient . and our signatures were on the bottom of the letter as I looked through the paperwork I found my mortgage application form and found out that when they typed up this letter on our behalf they copied our signatures onto this letter but they put them back to front on the letter by this I mean (on the original loan application form my husband signed in the first box and I signed in the second box on the forged document it has my signature first and my husband the second )
however we then contacted the broker who sold the ppi whitch were ct capital and made a complaint they looked into it and said that yes my ppi had been miss sold and there was notes on the system to say a man called Michel had typed up the letter and forged the signatures onto the document the man went on to say that they had pree crossed over the x on the application for whare it stated did they want ppi as on their loan application documents there already is an x pre printed in the box micheal stated that they rossed the box to make it look like mr had checked the box . anyway they would not pay my ppi back as I they stated it was over 6 years and as they were fined by the fca in 2012 I think it was for using the time bar as an excuse for not paying out customers but we were within the extra 3 year time limit so we said we are taking it to the ombudsman they wrote back to the ombudsman and told the ombudsman they did not wasn't the ombudsman to look into it . however after providing sufficient evidence on our behalf the ombudsman wrote out to us and said that they were upholding my complaint as the compnay hadn't submitted sufficient evidence but they could not look into the fraud aspect because they cant do that I said as long as I get my ppi back I don't mind but the adjudiffication officer who upheld my complaint said we have to give the business 28 days to submit any other evidence and they might want it to go to an ombudsman . however before the 28 days were up they wrote to my loan company asking for a welcome letter that had been sent or would have been sent out to us following the completion of our loan introducing us to our ppi but the loan company didn't have such document . they then wrote to the insurance company Cardiff pinnacle for details of any welcome letter and they provided a copy of the welcome letter without our authority as we have to fill in an authority form before they can release documents to the company . as they are a third party because of a breach of data protection . however they managed to get hold of the copy of the welcome letter and they have provided the ombudsman with the welcome letter as proof that we out to have been aware of the ppi when we received the welcome letter in 2005 from Cardiff pinnacle the insurers and underwriters of the ppi . the adjudiffication officer overturned the decision and changed their minds about upholding our complain on the basis that we aut to have been aware that we had taken out the product .


but what I am disputing is the ombudsman asked them to produce evidence their own ct capital evidence not a third party evidence because im not claiming back money from the insurance company or underwriters im claiming back miss sold ppi from the broker ie broker sold therefore the broker should not be submitting evidence from a third party to save their own pockets . the welcome letter provided they don't know for sure if it did come out to us because its not on headed paper and any documents provided to the customer would be noted on the system as sent out . and its not noted on their system as being sent out their letters don't go onto headed paper unless it is sent out so they cant be sure the document was sent out to us it might just be on the system ready to get sent out is that much clear for you so the ombudsman is looking at it again because we have provided further evidence .


the only case we have against the insurance company is that they disclosed private and confidential information breached data protection and now ct capital has use this information resulting in a loss of over 3000.00 because ct capital has used the document for personal gain

• if a company breaches data protection the ombudsman gives redress of 100.00 out just for disclosing your name and address.

doesn't matter taking the matter to court


regardless of whether they say we knew they still committed fraud we have had to report them to action fraud we have a crime reference from them
and they are not affiliates they don't work for or alongside Cardiff pinnacle anymore we have a privacy 101 setting on there now the unserwritters ie insurance company have been warned they are not allowed to disclose any information to the broker any more and if they contact them they nee to contact us they contacted my loan company who they done the brokerage for and my loan company would not speak to them over the phone without a letter of authority from us or disclose any information to them . they are not doing any work on my loan anymore so they should not be contacting any third party requesting information
they aren't going to like us taking them to court but this time they wont be able to write to the relevant companies to get information so they can use against us in court
this company has commited fraud lets see how far they get in court

dunstonh wrote: »

The timebar method would see the FOS ask the firm whether they are willing to waive the timebar or not. Most companies will not waive it.

For the FOS to overrule the timebar, there would have to be something wrong with the implementation of it and that is what appears to have initially been decided.



It doesnt work that way. For example, I am an IFA but a much of the documentation that is posted after the sale comes from the provider. Its the same here. I rely on that info coming from the provider as much as they rely on me doing my bit.



Copy letters do not have to be on headed paper. Indeed, many are not. They are computer generated and the paper used on the original would be different to the copy.



Why do you think they have broken data protection? The agency rights give them servicing permissions and access to information about the policy.


ok I can see your point but my loan company instructed ct capital to be the broker - indipendant of the loan company .


the broker miss sold ppi on my loan .


the loan company - instructed a third party Cardiff pinnacle to do the ppi


my point is the broker contacted my loan company for information my loan company refused because they did not have authority to disclose information without our consent so we had to give consent we had to fill in a form to give acces to the loan company to disclose informstion to the broker in 2015
but as they didn't have information they requested on the system . the loan company could not provide the documents they requested . they then went to the underwriters as a last resort .


the underwriters and the broker never worked together on my loan or ppi they are not connected in any way but gained access to documents without getting an authority form like my loan company




I asked the insurance company yesterday over the phone what documents they provided ct capital with and they said we only provided documents to you and the fos and I said thts not correct because when I phoned you on Wednesday you stated that you provided ct capital with documents in 2015 following a request I wanted to see their request letter . and they said the request letter . and I wanted to see authorisation that we had given them to disclose documents to a third party who originally ct capital never worked with and never instructed


if there was no breach if it was supplied to the selling agent then why did the loan company who instructed them to sell need authorisation to disclose any information can you answer me that why did we need to fill in a form giving authorisation for for the loan company to disclose information about us they needed our signature on the request form
why is that do you think .


it doesn't matter were taking the brokers to court for miss selling through fraud anyway I will get my justice one way or another


and they wont be so smug then - weather I win my case or not at least the court will know about the fraud that they have committed you just don't wake up in the morning and decide you are going to defraud somebody this person has been doing this to other people also all I wanted was my ppi back it didn't bother me so much about the fraud but why should I be a victim of fraud and let them get away with it .



There is no breach here as it was supplied to the selling agent and rules of agency allow sharing of information.

thank you anyway