Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • connor08
    • By connor08 9th Mar 17, 8:21 PM
    • 58Posts
    • 2Thanks
    connor08
    miss sold ppi
    • #1
    • 9th Mar 17, 8:21 PM
    miss sold ppi 9th Mar 17 at 8:21 PM
    I'm very angry ive been fraudulently miss sold ppi by the broker ct capital even though we stated we did not want ppi they typed up a letter saing mr wanted ppi and forged our signatures onto this letter from our loan application we took it to the ombudsman and the ombudsman upheld our complaint but he could not look into the fraud eliment only the miss selling so he contacted the company and said they were upholding my complaint the business still said that they did not want them to look at it because it was time barred it was over 6 years but we were within the extra 3 year time limit however ct capital hunted down my loan company to get documents to use against me and when they didn't have any joy there they went to the insurance company Cardiff pinnacle and asked if there was a welcome letter that Cardiff pinnacle had been sent out to me to welcome me to the loan and to the ppi and there was one so they asked for a copy and then ct capital used that as proof that I aut to have been aware that I had ppi I can understand if it was their own document but its not their using another companies information and they cant be 100 percent that that did come out in the post to me can they firstly use somebody elses documents as proof for themselves not to pay out this ppi
    is there any documents that can or cant be used as poof by a company to stop a customer claiming back ppi
    if anybody has information please give it ive lost 3000.00 plus otherwise if I don't get any help maybe that there are some ppi advisers out there that mey be able to help thanks in advance for reading xxx this company has been fined by the fca for not taking their customers complaints seriously and not using the time bar as an excuse not to pay out (maybe there is a ct capital customer out there that has had the same experience as explained earlier


    the ombudsman asked ct capital for their own evidence not a third party evidence


    the underwriter cant be sure as weather the letter did go out to us as their copy is not on headed paper and it only goes on headed paper while it is being printed


    if any documents are sent out they are recorded on the system
    and its not recorded in their computer diaries as been sent out
    so they are not 100 percent sure its was actually sent.


    this person is a third party they cant go around willy nilly contacting my loan company and insurance company asking for documents relating to my loan i have bank details on that system and private notes i don't want people trawling through my files
    Last edited by connor08; 11-03-2017 at 1:34 PM.
Page 1
    • zx81
    • By zx81 9th Mar 17, 8:35 PM
    • 10,789 Posts
    • 10,693 Thanks
    zx81
    • #2
    • 9th Mar 17, 8:35 PM
    • #2
    • 9th Mar 17, 8:35 PM
    Could you add some punctuation and paragraphs into that?

    Thanks.
    • -taff
    • By -taff 9th Mar 17, 8:55 PM
    • 6,958 Posts
    • 4,339 Thanks
    -taff
    • #3
    • 9th Mar 17, 8:55 PM
    • #3
    • 9th Mar 17, 8:55 PM
    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.
    • connor08
    • By connor08 11th Mar 17, 1:21 PM
    • 58 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    connor08
    • #4
    • 11th Mar 17, 1:21 PM
    • #4
    • 11th Mar 17, 1:21 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by -taff






    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.
    • Bogalot
    • By Bogalot 11th Mar 17, 2:02 PM
    • 1,012 Posts
    • 2,553 Thanks
    Bogalot
    • #5
    • 11th Mar 17, 2:02 PM
    • #5
    • 11th Mar 17, 2:02 PM
    We'd like to help you connor but your posts are impossible to make sense of. Is there someone that can help you with your writing?
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 11th Mar 17, 2:06 PM
    • 86,767 Posts
    • 51,929 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #6
    • 11th Mar 17, 2:06 PM
    • #6
    • 11th Mar 17, 2:06 PM
    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 .
    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.

    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
    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.

    . 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 .
    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.

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

    if a company breaches data protection the ombudsman gives redress of 100.00 out just for disclosing your name and address.
    There is no breach here as it was supplied to the selling agent and rules of agency allow sharing of information.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
    • connor08
    • By connor08 11th Mar 17, 3:53 PM
    • 58 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    connor08
    • #7
    • 11th Mar 17, 3:53 PM
    • #7
    • 11th Mar 17, 3:53 PM
    We'd like to help you connor but your posts are impossible to make sense of. Is there someone that can help you with your writing?
    Originally posted by Bogalot


    whats wrong with my writing
    • connor08
    • By connor08 11th Mar 17, 4:05 PM
    • 58 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    connor08
    • #8
    • 11th Mar 17, 4:05 PM
    • #8
    • 11th Mar 17, 4:05 PM
    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
    • By dunstonh 11th Mar 17, 4:13 PM
    • 86,767 Posts
    • 51,929 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #9
    • 11th Mar 17, 4:13 PM
    • #9
    • 11th Mar 17, 4:13 PM
    doesn't matter taking the matter to court
    How long ago was this as timebars exist in law as well.

    they are not doing any work on my loan anymore so they should not be contacting any third party requesting information
    No. But they remain agent on the policy until such time you end the agency agreement or the policy comes to an end.

    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
    There are not many successful court cases. There has been a few but if you are willing to put your money where your mouth is and suffer the potential losses if it goes wrong then good luck to you.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
    • connor08
    • By connor08 11th Mar 17, 4:35 PM
    • 58 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    connor08
    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.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    thank you anyway
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 11th Mar 17, 4:37 PM
    • 5,633 Posts
    • 5,841 Thanks
    AnotherJoe
    whats wrong with my writing
    Originally posted by connor08
    What wrong is that its massive blocks of text that are close to unreadable due to lack of punctuation, capitals and paragraphs.
    (a paragraph is not just a random amount of space between breathless blocks of text)

    If you wrote like this to the ombudsman or anyone else I'm amazed you got so far, kudos to them for persevering. I won't be.
    • connor08
    • By connor08 11th Mar 17, 5:29 PM
    • 58 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    connor08
    How long ago was this as timebars exist in law as well.



    No. But they remain agent on the policy until such time you end the agency agreement or the policy comes to an end.



    There are not many successful court cases. There has been a few but if you are willing to put your money where your mouth is and suffer the potential losses if it goes wrong then good luck to you.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    I understand that but our case was upheld the time bar isn't the problem . because we were within the extra 3 year time limit so taking it to court is not a problem because we are still within the 3 year time limit but even though were in the time limit ct didn't wasn't our case looked at its not just ppi here its fraud as well these people need to know whare to get off
    • Agricolae
    • By Agricolae 12th Mar 17, 12:23 AM
    • 352 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    Agricolae
    I understand that but our case was upheld the time bar isn't the problem . because we were within the extra 3 year time limit so taking it to court is not a problem because we are still within the 3 year time limit but even though were in the time limit ct didn't wasn't our case looked at its not just ppi here its fraud as well these people need to know whare to get off
    Originally posted by connor08
    I think what CT Capital are trying to say is that you're not in the 3 year time limit because you should have known the PPI had been put on your loan when you didn't want it back in 2005 when Cardiff Pinnacle apparently wrote to you confirming this.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 12th Mar 17, 11:04 AM
    • 3,899 Posts
    • 2,141 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    I understand that but our case was upheld the time bar isn't the problem . because we were within the extra 3 year time limit so taking it to court is not a problem because we are still within the 3 year time limit but even though were in the time limit ct didn't wasn't our case looked at its not just ppi here its fraud as well these people need to know whare to get off
    Originally posted by connor08
    Speak to a solicitor, even just for a free 30 minute consultation. You need very big pockets and no guarantee you will win, remember the burden of proof in civil court is "on the balance of probabilities", you have to be able to prove your case and you'd have to expect the bank to defend this, calling their bluff and hoping they settle is a big risk
    • meer53
    • By meer53 12th Mar 17, 6:53 PM
    • 8,543 Posts
    • 12,256 Thanks
    meer53
    whats wrong with my writing
    Originally posted by connor08
    I gave up when i got to this sentence :

    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

    TLDR
    • connor08
    • By connor08 13th Mar 17, 7:28 PM
    • 58 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    connor08
    How long ago was this as timebars exist in law as well.



    No. But they remain agent on the policy until such time you end the agency agreement or the policy comes to an end.



    There are not many successful court cases. There has been a few but if you are willing to put your money where your mouth is and suffer the potential losses if it goes wrong then good luck to you.
    Originally posted by dunstonh

    • hi there not named as an agent on my policy .


    • they are not named on my policy at all


    they were the brokers used to sell my loan only but they were instructed by my original loan company the sister company then took over . - taking over my loan from the company that originally hired them.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 13th Mar 17, 7:33 PM
    • 86,767 Posts
    • 51,929 Thanks
    dunstonh
    hi there not named as an agent on my policy .
    doesnt need to be.

    they are not named on my policy at all
    doesn't need to be.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
    • connor08
    • By connor08 13th Mar 17, 7:57 PM
    • 58 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    connor08
    What wrong is that its massive blocks of text that are close to unreadable due to lack of punctuation, capitals and paragraphs.
    (a paragraph is not just a random amount of space between breathless blocks of text)

    If you wrote like this to the ombudsman or anyone else I'm amazed you got so far, kudos to them for persevering. I won't be.
    Originally posted by AnotherJoe


    • Oh I do apologise about my spelling I type really fast.
    • I didn't think that there were any regulations on this site to use punctuation to be able to have your comments read.
    • But thanks again are you some kind of walking 1920's dictionary are you
    • I suppose you speak Greek as well you and your singular nouns
    • for people reading this who don't know what kudos means its a singular Greek noun kydos meaning "praise or renown"
    • Well I speak welsh Greek "mynd i uffern ac ewch i cachu".
    • connor08
    • By connor08 13th Mar 17, 8:07 PM
    • 58 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    connor08
    doesnt need to be.



    doesn't need to be.
    Originally posted by dunstonh

    • So what your saying is basically because they took part and sold ppi they can access my files from any financial link to me regarding the product that we purchased.


    • Because when they wrote to my loan company for information they said no .


    • My loan company requested an authorisation form that me and my husband had to sign. to disclose any information because of data protection .
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 13th Mar 17, 8:09 PM
    • 18,105 Posts
    • 8,427 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    I didn't think that there were any regulations on this site to use punctuation to be able to have your comments read.
    Originally posted by connor08
    If you want the most assistance from other users, it makes sense to ensure your posts stick to the point and are easily understood. Correctly used punctuation is an important aspect of this...
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,247Posts Today

9,033Users online

Martin's Twitter