PPI Reclaiming discussion Part III

booi666

dreamer33 wrote: »

Hi boo

Its caput, OH thinks its the PCB so have ordered one from EBAY, we went to use emersion heater and it don't work either, neon light comes on but no hot water:eek: , OH opened up socket and thinks live into the socket but nothing coming out. This was actually signed off and checked too :eek: oh there is going to be trouble with the builders if OH is correct.

Why have you an emersion heater when you have a boiler?

Incipience

dont tell me is this a case of mis-selling emersion heaters ;-P

booi666

Incipience wrote: »

dont tell me is this a case of mis-selling emersion heaters ;-P

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: You never know what uve been missold:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

dreamer33

Incipience wrote: »

dont tell me is this a case of mis-selling emersion heaters ;-P

OMG I never thought of that, at least First plus or freedom finance didn't sell it to us. lol

dreamer33

booi666 wrote: »

Why have you an emersion heater when you have a boiler?

Its not a combi its a condensing boiler so have a separate water tank.

dreamer33

Incipience wrote: »

The reason why some were successful is down to the fact that both the lender and the broker are responsible.

Most brokers prior to 2005 were not regulated or authorised to sell insurance products and therefore done so by way of proxy to lenders.

This is why lenders would call before paying out any money to confirm details of the loan and the policy. The lenders have to ensure due diligence in the sale say for just to cover their own asses.

The agreement of sale is between the lender and the insurer, once the loan has been passed to the lender, and therefore the risk is also passed.

The lender basically buys the lead for the loan and the policy and then compensates the broker for his part in the transaction, however in some cases the broker is regulated and authorised to advice in the sale of insurance ergo he has to follow the regulations and can be taken to task if he doesnt.

It is of course difficult to argue with the lender, as they are told what an how to deal with such actions, and they know when people claim foul on mis-selling the lender basically shrugs it off with "me know no" we never sold it. Which is correct, however they were still party to the sale.

Now if the lender told you that despites all its regulatory badges and memberships, that you would have no recourse on a claim for mis-selling would you have taken out the loan or PPI?

Most likely not, therefore the lender was not acting in your best interest, and therefore withheld vital facts, not withstanding to issues such as conflict of interest.

Now people are accepting this as law that the broker is responsible, only to be told by the FOS that the broker was not regulated and therefore not covered by the mediation of the FOS.

If a lender is saying that you need to approach the broker then you can of course write to the broker, and if they dont comply you can then issues 2 complaints to the FOS, one for the broker and one for the lender.

If you are going after the lender then you need to ensure that you tell the FOS, as to why you believe that the lender was equally responsible, and that the lender had misrepresented itself by ways of not disclosing that you had no recourse with them and that they had ultimately acted as the intermediary for the insurerer, and that its stance now is unfair as the lender did not make you aware that the responsibility of the loan and the PPI was not theres.

Bottom Line is that the Lender profited more than any other party in this transaction, and therefore is party to the mis-selling by association.

The ombudsmen will base its decision on what is fair, and if the lender is so "Nothing to do with me" then the lender will have no problem returning the account to a position to where it was had the PPI not been taking out.

Again.. When you go after the lender via the FOS make sure its not just about the sale.. you have to fight every possible scenario in one go.. You have to show that the lenders actions or lack thereof was unfair and detrimental to you the consumer, you must also argue that had you been aware of the ultimate responsibility then you would never of take out the loan. This argument is given further weight by the branding of the credit agreement and the branding of the policy documentation.

Remember that you are a consumer and are not privvy to agreeements between brokers and lenders and you are no way capable of knowing who is reponsible for what.. you have to assert your own assumptions.

Then the ombudsmen will rule on what is ultimately fair to you the consumer.

Furthermore, any legal action in these cases, the lawyers allways go after the lender.. so you have to ask yourself why this is so.. and why you are not privvy as to why.

And that my friends is why you are the dumb consumer that knows no better, and this will help your case.

You know when you look at it like this it all makes sense, I was fobbed off by First Plus immediately and started to go after the broker, this is very interesting and wish I had of known it at an earlier point. Would never have thought of this at all.

I love your post here it will help a lot of posters too:T :T :T

booi666

dreamer33 wrote: »

Its not a combi its a condensing boiler so have a separate water tank.

Whats that got to do with the price of fish:rotfl:

your tank feeds your cylinder so i presume your boiler does your c /h

A combi is a condensing boiler:eek:

di3004

Incipience wrote: »

The reason why some were successful is down to the fact that both the lender and the broker are responsible.

Most brokers prior to 2005 were not regulated or authorised to sell insurance products and therefore done so by way of proxy to lenders.

This is why lenders would call before paying out any money to confirm details of the loan and the policy. The lenders have to ensure due diligence in the sale say for just to cover their own asses.

The agreement of sale is between the lender and the insurer, once the loan has been passed to the lender, and therefore the risk is also passed.

The lender basically buys the lead for the loan and the policy and then compensates the broker for his part in the transaction, however in some cases the broker is regulated and authorised to advice in the sale of insurance ergo he has to follow the regulations and can be taken to task if he doesnt.

It is of course difficult to argue with the lender, as they are told what an how to deal with such actions, and they know when people claim foul on mis-selling the lender basically shrugs it off with "me know no" we never sold it. Which is correct, however they were still party to the sale.

Now if the lender told you that despites all its regulatory badges and memberships, that you would have no recourse on a claim for mis-selling would you have taken out the loan or PPI?

Most likely not, therefore the lender was not acting in your best interest, and therefore withheld vital facts, not withstanding to issues such as conflict of interest.

Now people are accepting this as law that the broker is responsible, only to be told by the FOS that the broker was not regulated and therefore not covered by the mediation of the FOS.

If a lender is saying that you need to approach the broker then you can of course write to the broker, and if they dont comply you can then issues 2 complaints to the FOS, one for the broker and one for the lender.

If you are going after the lender then you need to ensure that you tell the FOS, as to why you believe that the lender was equally responsible, and that the lender had misrepresented itself by ways of not disclosing that you had no recourse with them and that they had ultimately acted as the intermediary for the insurerer, and that its stance now is unfair as the lender did not make you aware that the responsibility of the loan and the PPI was not theres.

Bottom Line is that the Lender profited more than any other party in this transaction, and therefore is party to the mis-selling by association.

The ombudsmen will base its decision on what is fair, and if the lender is so "Nothing to do with me" then the lender will have no problem returning the account to a position to where it was had the PPI not been taking out.

Again.. When you go after the lender via the FOS make sure its not just about the sale.. you have to fight every possible scenario in one go.. You have to show that the lenders actions or lack thereof was unfair and detrimental to you the consumer, you must also argue that had you been aware of the ultimate responsibility then you would never of take out the loan. This argument is given further weight by the branding of the credit agreement and the branding of the policy documentation.

Remember that you are a consumer and are not privvy to agreeements between brokers and lenders and you are no way capable of knowing who is reponsible for what.. you have to assert your own assumptions.

Then the ombudsmen will rule on what is ultimately fair to you the consumer.

Furthermore, any legal action in these cases, the lawyers allways go after the lender.. so you have to ask yourself why this is so.. and why you are not privvy as to why.

And that my friends is why you are the dumb consumer that knows no better, and this will help your case.

Thank you Incipience.
Very interesting indeed, this can also explain why the FOS do not know half of the time who we should pursue through - thinking about it now.....

With mine (Endeavour) from the start I wrote to them and each time it was "you should puruse the broker who was Click Finance"......so you have a point here.....

dreamer33

booi666 wrote: »

Whats that got to do with the price of fish:rotfl:

your tank feeds your cylinder so i presume your boiler does your c /h

A combi is a condensing boiler:eek:

That fish are healthier than my boiler cause I got no hot water and I may start to stink like a fish lol:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: (i go to my mammys lol)

Its a conventional boiler so the emersion is there for backup, in our case though not there at all:eek:

di3004

dreamer33 wrote: »

That fish are healthier than my boiler cause I got no hot water and I may start to stink like a fish lol:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: (i go to my mammys lol)

Its a conventional boiler so the emersion is there for backup, in our case though not there at all:eek:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Dreamer are you covered for this?
Yes I do mean insurance ? lol......:D