PPI Reclaiming discussion Part III

pinknico

From the FSCS WEBSITE:

To the general public: to provide timely, relevant, accurate and accessible information about FSCS and its activities.

Yeah right!!!

di3004

I had been given the run around with one of mine...from the lender to the broker to the insurer and the FOS are even baffled..... , this will be the 4th time now with the FOS.

I first tried the lender who were EPF,
Then was told to move on toL Broker Click Finance, told they had dissolved in 2006, so from that Hamilton Insurance,they informed the FOS they are not responsible as HFC were within remit of EPF, FOS sent back the details to HFC , HFC then said EPF again....

And so on, been running around in circles with this one.
This was unregulated/secured loan over 25 years, taken out July 2004 and settled in Nov 2005.


Had a loan then arranged through Twopart/Eloan to pay off EPF in Nov 2005, lender Nemo, then had loan advance July 2006 with Nemo.

Twopart dissolved May of 2008, so moved this onto FSCS, although I did not think if insurers then who are in fact Norwich Union.
This secured/unregulated loan was for 25 years but settled Aug 2007.

Thanks for your info Incipience.;)

di3004

pinknico wrote: »

From the FSCS WEBSITE:

To the general public: to provide timely, relevant, accurate and accessible information about FSCS and its activities.

Yeah right!!!

lol, yeah I know what you mean there Pinknico....!!

Incipience

You reserve the right to complaint to whomever you want. The whole point is to increase your chances of succes, so this means taking to every responsible regulator and party to the transaction.

Each party had a role to play in the sale of the policy, and profited from it.

Just think in terms of the law, were you to profit from any criminal matter, even though you had nothing to do with the actual crime, you would be deemed to have been an accessory to said crime and would therefore be liable.

The mistakes from what I can see, is that everyone is going to the LENDER and complaining about what they were told or not told, with regards to the SALE of the Payment Protection.

And here in lies the problems the word "SOLD", the lender will of course tell you that the BROKER sold the policy. Which in part is true, however what the lender fails to tell you, is that they were in most cases the intermediary for the insurer in the sale of the policy.

Therefore according to the insurer the lender sold the policy. Now the insurer admiting this will help your case when you proceed to the FOS.

The whole point is to make it as confusing as possible, because you are a dumb consumer and you know no better, now if the lender, the insurer and the broker all blame each other, how can you have been expected to understand what it was your were being sold.

You will also note in the Lenders Terms and Condidtions, and Policy Documentation it has no mention of the broker in the responsibility of the sale of the ppi. It will only mention either the Lenders Complaints Process or that of the Insurers.

So with all this information, how are you the dumb consumer to make any assumptions as to who sold you the policy.

You cant. The lender takes great care into reassuring you that they are regulated and that you are protected by its various memberships and codes of conducts.

You can therefore argue that the lenders lack of disclosure was party to the mis-selling of the policy, and can therefore argue that if the lender wants nothing to do with the sale, or accept any responsibility for the sale, then it would be safe to assume that the lender would be happy to return the account back to where it would have been had you not taking out the policy.

But, the lender wont do that.. so you have to argue as to why, the lender is unwilling if it has no responsibility for the policy.

Were the lender to return the policy it would only lose out on returning your own money, so it wont actually cost them anything.

Ok so the might have to payback the commission to the insurer, and take a hit on the commission paid to the broker, or so you would think.

The fact is that Companies such as firstplus apply interest at a higher rate to borrowers that have been introduced via a broker in order to cover the fees paid to the broker, so even if it has to pay back all the premiums, you would still be on a higher rate of interest for the loan and for the rest of the loans term.

It is all confusing, and this is a good thing. Remember the FOS will adjudicate on what is actually fair. So when arguing your point with the FOS about your policy you have to argue that you were LED to believe by the assureance of the Lender that they were responsible and that save for the initial contact with the broker, ultimately your loan an policy is with the Lender.

No you are scared that were you to have a problem with the sale of the loan itself that you would have no recourse against the lender.

You are therefore suffering from incertainty as to what or who this loan and ppi is about.. You are also fearful now that you would never be able to claim of the policy or get back the permium after the five years.

Forget about the sale of the loan and concentrate on the deception that ensued since the policy was taken and based on the lenders assertions the policy is not worth the paper in which it is printed.

The lender cant have it both ways, it either takes responsibilty and therefore it is them who mis-sold, or they deny the responsibility and therefore it is them who had not disclosed pertainent information and ultimately therefore the policy is unsuitable by misrepresentation.

The lender has a duty to ensure to the insurer that the information is correct, if it doesnt then the insurer has a right to cancel the policy and request back the commissions paid to the lender.

Now if you go to the insurer and inform them that the information given by the lender was misleading and false, the insurer has to investigate and therefore act upon.

At the end of the day they all want to cover their asses, and that will help you. as ultimately the insurer would be regulated by a myriad of acts and regulations and it owes a duty to insure that the information is correct, if it feels the Lender acted in party to a misrepresented and therefore unsuitable policy the insurer has to react.

di3004

Incipience wrote: »

You reserve the right to complaint to whomever you want. The whole point is to increase your chances of succes, so this means taking to every responsible regulator and party to the transaction.

Each party had a role to play in the sale of the policy, and profited from it.

Just think in terms of the law, were you to profit from any criminal matter, even though you had nothing to do with the actual crime, you would be deemed to have been an accessory to said crime and would therefore be liable.

The mistakes from what I can see, is that everyone is going to the LENDER and complaining about what they were told or not told, with regards to the SALE of the Payment Protection.

And here in lies the problems the word "SOLD", the lender will of course tell you that the BROKER sold the policy. Which in part is true, however what the lender fails to tell you, is that they were in most cases the intermediary for the insurer in the sale of the policy.

Therefore according to the insurer the lender sold the policy. Now the insurer admiting this will help your case when you proceed to the FOS.

The whole point is to make it as confusing as possible, because you are a dumb consumer and you know no better, now if the lender, the insurer and the broker all blame each other, how can you have been expected to understand what it was your were being sold.

You will also note in the Lenders Terms and Condidtions, and Policy Documentation it has no mention of the broker in the responsibility of the sale of the ppi. It will only mention either the Lenders Complaints Process or that of the Insurers.

So with all this information, how are you the dumb consumer to make any assumptions as to who sold you the policy.

You cant. The lender takes great care into reassuring you that they are regulated and that you are protected by its various memberships and codes of conducts.

You can therefore argue that the lenders lack of disclosure was party to the mis-selling of the policy, and can therefore argue that if the lender wants nothing to do with the sale, or accept any responsibility for the sale, then it would be safe to assume that the lender would be happy to return the account back to where it would have been had you not taking out the policy.

But, the lender wont do that.. so you have to argue as to why, the lender is unwilling if it has no responsibility for the policy.

Were the lender to return the policy it would only lose out on returning your own money, so it wont actually cost them anything.

Ok so the might have to payback the commission to the insurer, and take a hit on the commission paid to the broker, or so you would think.

The fact is that Companies such as firstplus apply interest at a higher rate to borrowers that have been introduced via a broker in order to cover the fees paid to the broker, so even if it has to pay back all the premiums, you would still be on a higher rate of interest for the loan and for the rest of the loans term.

It is all confusing, and this is a good thing. Remember the FOS will adjudicate on what is actually fair. So when arguing your point with the FOS about your policy you have to argue that you were LED to believe by the assureance of the Lender that they were responsible and that save for the initial contact with the broker, ultimately your loan an policy is with the Lender.

No you are scared that were you to have a problem with the sale of the loan itself that you would have no recourse against the lender.

You are therefore suffering from incertainty as to what or who this loan and ppi is about.. You are also fearful now that you would never be able to claim of the policy or get back the permium after the five years.

Forget about the sale of the loan and concentrate on the deception that ensued since the policy was taken and based on the lenders assertions the policy is not worth the paper in which it is printed.

The lender cant have it both ways, it either takes responsibilty and therefore it is them who mis-sold, or they deny the responsibility and therefore it is them who had not disclosed pertainent information and ultimately therefore the policy is unsuitable by misrepresentation.

The lender has a duty to ensure to the insurer that the information is correct, if it doesnt then the insurer has a right to cancel the policy and request back the commissions paid to the lender.

Now if you go to the insurer and inform them that the information given by the lender was misleading and false, the insurer has to investigate and therefore act upon.

At the end of the day they all want to cover their asses, and that will help you. as ultimately the insurer would be regulated by a myriad of acts and regulations and it owes a duty to insure that the information is correct, if it feels the Lender acted in party to a misrepresented and therefore unsuitable policy the insurer has to react.

This is very helpful Incipience and yes I see your point here, thanks.

Your right, on my paperwork from the lender there is no mention of the broker whatsoever, the complaints procedures do in fact show them of the lender.
Then the details of the insurance supplier.
Now its all starting to fall in to place....nicely.;)

Incipience

I think its time that the SAR templates be reworded to request the disclosure of commissions paid and commissions recieved.

What do you all think?

di3004

Incipience wrote: »

I think its time that the SAR templates be reworded to request the disclosure of commissions paid and commissions recieved.

What do you all think?

Yes that is a good idea......that way they will or should disclose this.
That is something that is missing from these SAR's, a great idea I say!

SuzySu

Hi
We took out a loan with Picture in May 2007. I had never heard of PPI but do remember the loan advisor discussing life cover and redundancy stuff with me. The paperwork which we signed also states (in small writing) "you have chosen to purchase our optional five-year Picture Payment Protector ........ the granting of the loan is not dependant on it being purchased".

I don't know if it was mis-sold or not really. I certainly did not realise that the PPI was going to cost us an extra £11,227!! Can someone tell me whether I have a leg to stand on or whether I should just chalk it up to experience? £11,227 is a lot of money to lose - it would completely clear my debts.

Thanks.

di3004

SuzySu wrote: »

Hi
We took out a loan with Picture in May 2007. I had never heard of PPI but do remember the loan advisor discussing life cover and redundancy stuff with me. The paperwork which we signed also states (in small writing) "you have chosen to purchase our optional five-year Picture Payment Protector ........ the granting of the loan is not dependant on it being purchased".

I don't know if it was mis-sold or not really. I certainly did not realise that the PPI was going to cost us an extra £11,227!! Can someone tell me whether I have a leg to stand on or whether I should just chalk it up to experience? £11,227 is a lot of money to lose - it would completely clear my debts.

Thanks.

Hi SuzySu

I take it you read my post then over at the Success thread?;)

Did you manage to check that FSCS link out as well hun?

As these are no longer active, the complainants have taken their's with the FSCS, they are actually under investigation right now, so hopefully it will not be too long for the ones who have put claims in about these to hear something.

If you get a chance, read back on here and you will see that there are others here as well, and also a Pinknico who posted here earlier has her claim in with the FSCS in regards of Picture as well, one of those in the same situation as youself should post up here at some point for you.;)

Also check out other reasons here on this link below, if any of them occur to you then you have a case, even though what you state is at least one of those as well.;)
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/ppi-loan-insurance

Yes its a huge amount of money, and would be very handy for you X

SuzySu

Hi and thanks Di

Yes, I had a quick look but it will take more than one attempt to try to get my head round all of this!

Yes......it is a huge amount of money and would completely change my life around. I will keep checking in to see how others (especially those with a complaint against Picture) get on.

Thanks for your time.