PPI Reclaiming discussion Part III

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Just found this about unfair terms in consumer contracts and the Ombudsman


In some policies the cancellation clause states that if the firm decides to cancel a policy at any point during the period of insurance, it will refund some of the premiums already paid – on a pro rata basis. However, if the policyholder cancels, then the firm retains all the premiums already paid, or refunds a smaller proportion than if it had itself cancelled the policy.
The FSA statement specifically refers to terms that charge policyholders a disproportionately large sum if they do not fulfil their obligations under a contract, or if they cancel it. We share the view that giving consumers the right to cancel – and then penalising them financially for exercising that right – is likely to be unenforceable in law, as well as unfair and unreasonable.

Looks like we can have them for unfair terms from what it says here...

In cases referred to us, if a customer has cancelled a policy and received a significantly smaller refund of premiums than could be expected as a pro rata settlement, we will ask the firm to explain how its approach complies with the requirements under the regulations.

It is not usually unreasonable for the firm to recover any additional administrative costs it incurs. Nor is it usually unreasonable for its charge to reflect the costs it necessarily incurred in setting up the policy – and that will not now be spread over the assumed lifetime of the insurance.
Similarly, the provision that premiums for an annual contract are not refundable if a claim has been paid does not appear to be unfair.
We recognise that there may also be seasonal or other features of the policy which could justify different approaches to refunds. And we recognise the more fundamental point that under some policies, both the risk and the insurer’s potential liability may be higher at the outset of the policy than at the end – so the premium calculation will reflect this.
But in any event, it is important for the firm to have fair reasons for its approach to premium refunds – and for it to explain its approach clearly to the customer.
In some circumstances, regulatory rules require ‘cooling-off’ periods for contracts. We would expect firms to make particular provision for these periods, as it is important that cancellation rights are not restricted by unfair charging practices. For example, the Insurance Conduct of Business rules require insurers to allow a cooling-off period of 30 days for pure protection contracts. If a customer decides to cancel the contract during this period, insurers are not entitled to charge anything.
Complaints about refunds under payment protection policies – and under other policies that are not renewable – require us to consider some additional factors. We hope to comment further on this in a future edition of ombudsman news.


http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/54/insurance.htm

Wow thanks for posting this Marshallka, seems interesting, will have another thorough read through shortly.;)

di3004

I was thinking, meanings HFC/Endeavour have not yet posted that PPI document, wonder if they can send this by an attachment email ?

What do you think?
Expecially now the post is not going to be that reliable at this time of year

I really don't understand why they did not send this with the SAR, or even with the documents at the time.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

I was thinking, meanings HFC/Endeavour have not yet posted that PPI document, wonder if they can send this by an attachment email ?

What do you think?
Expecially now the post is not going to be that reliable at this time of year

I really don't understand why they did not send this with the SAR, or even with the documents at the time.

I don't think there is any definate time limit for sending this policy document. Its not like the agreement or a SAR but has the complaint already been made about it anyway..??

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

I really don't understand why they did not send this with the SAR, or even with the documents at the time.

Mine were not sent with my SAR but i noticed and requested them anyway.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

I don't think there is any definate time limit for sending this policy document. Its not like the agreement or a SAR but has the complaint already been made about it anyway..??

Not gone any further with this since, I wanted to check what was in it to see if there would be anything useful in it to enclose this back with the complaint form to the FOS, as she said to return this with any relevent info for them to make a decision in who to actually pursue this with.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Mine were not sent with my SAR but i noticed and requested them anyway.

I see, so this is a common thing then?
So you did not receive this with your loan docs either then, when you had taken this out?

di3004

Back soon, on the phone a min lol.:D

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

I see, so this is a common thing then?
So you did not receive this with your loan docs either then, when you had taken this out?

No and I actually tell them this in a phone call in 2003.... or anything about the settlement etc...I received nothing at all and all I remember is asking firstplus about it (not the broker).They have sent the phone call document where I state I received nothing at all about any insurance when we took the loan out and also about use of rule 78 in settlement.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Not gone any further with this since, I wanted to check what was in it to see if there would be anything useful in it to enclose this back with the complaint form to the FOS, as she said to return this with any relevent info for them to make a decision in who to actually pursue this with.

I thought FOS were making the complaint in your behalf just like with mine. FOS have written to Lloyds to ask them for a final response in the matter. I am not expecting anything to come of this as I used the figures that I worked out using tiggraes calculation method and they are far too high and if the FOS have given this to Lloyds there is no way they will look at it. I have done a proper calculation and its only £4K they overcharged and they are allowed to use 22% max for admin etc so its about £3K odd plus statutory interest. I will not give up on this as I have now done proper calculations using the rule of 78 calculator and we paid this 4k extra to settle for a policy which was no longer of any use to us. I stated £6k in my last letter and that was wrong.

I have asked the FOS for a copy of the complaint letter they have sent to LLoyds on my behalf so I will just have to wait and see and also if Lloyds get back then I may have a chance to actually send my letter I have drafted now. I feel a bit daft now sending what I did and wish I used my own brain and not listened to someone else.

See post 5662 of the calculations and these are correct as I have worked them back on the loan without the PPI. It was definately £4K extra for having the PPI at settlement.

Even with the £3161 being 78% pro rata of the £4K figure and add the statutory interest its still a claim of about £4.5K so I will be pursuing this for definate.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

I thought FOS were making the complaint in your behalf just like with mine. FOS have written to Lloyds to ask them for a final response in the matter. I am not expecting anything to come of this as I used the figures that I worked out using tiggraes calculation method and they are far too high and if the FOS have given this to Lloyds there is no way they will look at it. I have done a proper calculation and its only £4K they overcharged and they are allowed to use 22% max for admin etc so its about £3K odd plus statutory interest. I will not give up on this as I have now done proper calculations using the rule of 78 calculator and we paid this 4k extra to settle for a policy which was no longer of any use to us. I stated £6k in my last letter and that was wrong.

I have asked the FOS for a copy of the complaint letter they have sent to LLoyds on my behalf so I will just have to wait and see and also if Lloyds get back then I may have a chance to actually send my letter I have drafted now. I feel a bit daft now sending what I did and wish I used my own brain and not listened to someone else.

See post 5662 of the calculations and these are correct as I have worked them back on the loan without the PPI. It was definately £4K extra for having the PPI at settlement.

Even with the £3161 being 78% pro rata of the £4K figure and add the statutory interest its still a claim of about £4.5K so I will be pursuing this for definate.

Yes they did, but since I had that letter from HFC that told me that they were not responsible the FOS then told me to return everything so they can then investigate who to sent the complaint to again..... 4 times now.

It gets quite confusing really because first of all the FOS consultant said they have sent details to Hamilton as they were the actual insurers, then the FOS got back to say that they actually heard from Hamilton themselves, (not me) and said HFC were under Endeavour where it should be through them, so the consultant then sent details to them, but then I decided to contact HFC to make sure they had received the details from the FOS, they said they did not then next thing I had that letter a few weeks back to tell me that HFC is not responsible and they had not heard anything from the FOS, and they said about the lender Endeavour, although they are linked its not their responsibility, and Endeavour were not under covered until April 2007.

M Colak worked my calculations out at first as I did not have a clue, but again its nothing compared to yours hun.
I agree you definately need to pursue on yours, its pathetic and so very unfair with yours that's for sure !