PPI Reclaiming Discussion part 4

marshallka

Tiggrae, I just wanted to ask what you thought about being told by FOS that unfair rebates are against the Insurer and not the lender and also the date of sale is applicable and not the date of settlement. Also these complaints so I am told are unfair terms in contracts and you have to find and state the term of the Insurance contract (not the loan contract) that you find is unfair. I put in my complaint as you know for unfair rebate from FP and was told after months that this complaint was against the Insurer and had nothing to do with the lender or broker. It is under compulsory jurisidiction of the Ombudsman as its was Lloyds of London they write to but I have not seen anyone on here do it this way. Di was also told the same that the complaint lay with the insurer. What are your views.

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

Tiggrae, I just wanted to ask what you thought about being told by FOS that unfair rebates are against the Insurer and not the lender and also the date of sale is applicable and not the date of settlement. Also these complaints so I am told are unfair terms in contracts and you have to find and state the term of the Insurance contract (not the loan contract) that you find is unfair. I put in my complaint as you know for unfair rebate from FP and was told after months that this complaint was against the Insurer and had nothing to do with the lender or broker. It is under compulsory jurisidiction of the Ombudsman as its was Lloyds of London they write to but I have not seen anyone on here do it this way. Di was also told the same that the complaint lay with the insurer. What are your views.

I've not come across this but I suppose it really depends upon where it's written into the contract that the lender is allowed to give you a low rebate on the PPI policy if you end the loan early - what I've seen it's always been written into the loan contract and not the policy document - so the unfair term has to have been imposed by the lender and acted upon by the lender - but maybe all lenders are different !! As for the time frame I can see the arguement being for when date of the contract term being signed as being the applicable date, but I would always try and argue it as being the date the term was enacted upon as being the applicable date - but you know me I'll try and argue anything if it helps people get their money back

I've just pulled out a FP Payment Protection Plan - it has a heading of FIRSTPLUS Financial, in the introduction section it states ' We have specifically designed Payment Protection Plan to help you meet.......'

under Definitions is has 'we/us/our' as being FirstPlus Financial Group'

Then it has a section Termination of Cover & Benefit which they use the last paragraph for a partial refund as it states if you terminate early you are entitled to a partial refund of your premium which will not be proportional and may be substantially less then the amount originally paid'

However, to me it's that first paragraph of the document which states we have specifically designed .... which to me says this is an FP policy document and therefore, your contract (if you have the same document) is with FP and NOT the insurer !!!

stereo_mike

masmit wrote: »

Declining is not dealing with it, lenders have abused the system for profit, they are still abusing the system with complaints, some bank's turning away over 90% of cases.
I certainly don't want to be guided by the cause of the problem.

I wonder who works for a Solicitors or Ambulance chasing firm??

Trust me even Solicitors do not know the difference between pre and post reg cases, and the fact that GISC provided a voluntary scheme before the FSA took over.

So far every case I have received from a solicitor has quoted the Hurstanger case, and every time it has been dis-proved, as Solicitors do not read the paperwork given to the client at the time of the application, even if they initially do a SAR request!!!!

My advice would still be to stay as far away from Claims firms whether they are Solicitors or not. To date I have never upheld a complaint from one of these company's, and neither has the FOS when they have been referred, and none of the cases have ended up in court as the Solicitors just try to use scare tactics of thretening court, but never actually go ahead with it.

girlatplay

blyth wrote: »

Thanks for that girlatplay
Thats useful information. I think I will keep writing to them each week untill I get a result as this complaint has been on going since February. They are so quick to take money from you but not so quick to give it back.

I first wrote to them in January. I only wrote one letter (the first template letter) and although I waited until May to get my money back, I didn't have to do anything further. Quite honestly I didn't have much spare time to chase them (single parent working full time) so that suited me. They paid back all the money with 8% interest on top.

:j

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

I've not come across this but I suppose it really depends upon where it's written into the contract that the lender is allowed to give you a low rebate on the PPI policy if you end the loan early - what I've seen it's always been written into the loan contract and not the policy document - so the unfair term has to have been imposed by the lender and acted upon by the lender - but maybe all lenders are different !! As for the time frame I can see the arguement being for when date of the contract term being signed as being the applicable date, but I would always try and argue it as being the date the term was enacted upon as being the applicable date - but you know me I'll try and argue anything if it helps people get their money back

Its OK to try and argue it but FOS will not listen to this argument about the date of the actual settlement being the date of the complaint. I have tried and tried using that one and eventually I had a manager ring me back and they said they would write to Lloyds of London on my behalf and that the complaint about the rebate was actually determined by the contract of the insurance. I have the email here whereby they turned my complaint down again with FIrstplus. They wrote here

Thank you for your email regarding your above mentioned complaint. Your complaint has been passed to me to determine whether or not it is one which we can consider. From the papers in the file I understand that you would like us to investigate a complaint about the unfair rebate paid on your PPI policy.

Whilst I appreciate that your policy was sold by Firstplus in January 2000, and issues relating to rebate payments should be directed to the insurance company who underwrote the policy. I therefore suggest that you initially contact the insurance company as they provided the rebate, in order to raise your concerns with it. Details of the insurance company should be stated in your policy booklet.

They then wrote to Lloyds on my behalf back last year and the complaint has yet to be looked into if it is something they can do:rolleyes:. I argued the terms of the actual loan contact but they were not having none at all and I also received this one when i argued the jurisdiction as my complaint was for the date of 2003 when Firstplus were actually GISC members.
As previously explained your case may need to be referred to our legal department, which means that it may take a few months before we are able to resolve the issue.

It went before there legal department and again they were having none against Firstplus as they said it was inappropiate" to make the complaint against them,

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

Its OK to try and argue it but FOS will not listen to this argument about the date of the actual settlement being the date of the complaint. I have tried and tried using that one and eventually I had a manager ring me back and they said they would write to Lloyds of London on my behalf and that the complaint about the rebate was actually determined by the contract of the insurance. I have the email here whereby they turned my complaint down again with FIrstplus. They wrote here

Thank you for your email regarding your above mentioned complaint. Your complaint has been passed to me to determine whether or not it is one which we can consider. From the papers in the file I understand that you would like us to investigate a complaint about the unfair rebate paid on your PPI policy.

Whilst I appreciate that your policy was sold by Firstplus in January 2000, and issues relating to rebate payments should be directed to the insurance company who underwrote the policy. I therefore suggest that you initially contact the insurance company as they provided the rebate, in order to raise your concerns with it. Details of the insurance company should be stated in your policy booklet.

They then wrote to Lloyds on my behalf back last year and the complaint has yet to be looked into if it is something they can do:rolleyes:. I argued the terms of the actual loan contact but they were not having none at all and I also received this one when i argued the jurisdiction as my complaint was for the date of 2003 when Firstplus were actually GISC members.
As previously explained your case may need to be referred to our legal department, which means that it may take a few months before we are able to resolve the issue.

It went before there legal department and again they were having none against Firstplus as they said it was inappropiate" to make the complaint against them,

Did you see this bit I added on

I've just pulled out a FP Payment Protection Plan - it has a heading of FIRSTPLUS Financial, in the introduction section it states ' We have specifically designed Payment Protection Plan to help you meet.......'

under Definitions is has 'we/us/our' as being FirstPlus Financial Group'

Then it has a section Termination of Cover & Benefit which they use the last paragraph for a partial refund as it states if you terminate early you are entitled to a partial refund of your premium which will not be proportional and may be substantially less then the amount originally paid'

However, to me it's that first paragraph of the document which is important as it states 'we have specifically designed .... which to me says this is an FP policy document and not the insurers !!!

weeang_2

tiggrae wrote: »

your shouldn't have to much trouble - if they deny your claim (as is standard) as your loan was taken out after the 12.01.2005 (which is when they came under the compulsory jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service) you can take your complaint to them !!

READING THE OTHER THREADS PEOPLE ARE SAYING fREEDOM ARE PASSING IT OF AS BESPOKE PROBLEM AND THEY CANT DO ANYTHING WILL THAT BE THE SAME WITH ME?

tiggrae

weeang wrote: »

READING THE OTHER THREADS PEOPLE ARE SAYING fREEDOM ARE PASSING IT OF AS BESPOKE PROBLEM AND THEY CANT DO ANYTHING WILL THAT BE THE SAME WITH ME?

for bespoke to have 'sold' you the policy after the 12.01.2005 they need to have been registered with the Financial Services Authority - if they try to claim it was them then they must have been working illegally so I doubt very much they'll try that one on - if they so write back to them asking for Bespokes FSA registration number and tell them you'll report them for unlawful trading

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

Did you see this bit I added on

I've just pulled out a FP Payment Protection Plan - it has a heading of FIRSTPLUS Financial, in the introduction section it states ' We have specifically designed Payment Protection Plan to help you meet.......'

under Definitions is has 'we/us/our' as being FirstPlus Financial Group'

Then it has a section Termination of Cover & Benefit which they use the last paragraph for a partial refund as it states if you terminate early you are entitled to a partial refund of your premium which will not be proportional and may be substantially less then the amount originally paid'

However, to me it's that first paragraph of the document which is important as it states 'we have specifically designed .... which to me says this is an FP policy document and not the insurers !!!

Yeah I know. Its so blummin annoying this with Firstplus and the FOS. I stated its a firstplus policy and they are responsible for the rebate but got told this in the end so I had no option than to let them make the complaint against Lloyds.

Thank you for your email in which you state that you do not want your complaint against Firstplus closed, until you know that The Society of Lloyds will actually take responsibility for the issues relating to unfair rebate. I appreciate your comments, however as previously explained we are unable to consider your complaint against Firstplus as, although your policy was sold by Firstplus, issues relating to rebate payments should be directed to the insurance company who underwrote the policy, i.e. The Society of Lloyds.

As a result, the following two options are available to you in respect of this complaint;
1) You accept the view issued stating that we cannot hold Firstplus responsible for a complaint concerning rebate, and the complaint is closed.
2) Alternatively, if you are not willing to accept my view, the final stage in our procedure would be to have your complaint against Firstplus referred to the ombudsman for a final decision to be made.

I was told also that it would also no doubt be the Ombudsmans decision too by their legal department.

marshallka

weeang wrote: »

READING THE OTHER THREADS PEOPLE ARE SAYING fREEDOM ARE PASSING IT OF AS BESPOKE PROBLEM AND THEY CANT DO ANYTHING WILL THAT BE THE SAME WITH ME?

I doubt they will tell you that bespoke sold it as this was only policies before the FSA regulation of Insurance.