PPI Reclaiming Discussion part 4

pinknico

di3004 wrote: »

Hi folks

Just very quickly as busy busy busy lol.

Heard from the Ombudsman's adjudcator by email, (out of the blue), she enclosed a copy of the letter sent to lloyds tsb by attachment, and also agrees this should be upheld, the FOS have asked them to get back by the 19th Feb with a verdict of this case.

Its a huge email lol, but looking good, catch ya lata.;)

Hurray DI!!!!!!

Incipience

marshallka wrote: »

What date does this apply from for claimers on here to give them hope with their PPI claims?

Common Law Principles of Agency is a law that has been in force for many years and pre-dates any of the claims on here.

However, this is not something which you can fight yourself, not unless you have the balls to go up against a QC, a Judge and a load of Junior Counsel.

Incipience

marshallka wrote: »

FISA had a meeting about it here
Tuesday 23rd September 2008


Claims Company activity in relation to Commission Disclosure
Over the past few months, several members have received correspondence from claims companies, alleging there has been a breach of fiduciary duty by failing to adequately disclose the amount of commission, and not obtaining the customer s informed consent to allow the broker to keep the commission.
The purpose of the seminar is for legal and practical guidance to be disseminated, about how to respond appropriately to such correspondence.

How to wiggle out of it more like ;-). Claims companies have knowledge yes, but in matters of the law it really needs legal counsel.

marshallka

Incipience wrote: »

If the commission was not disclosed at point of sale or prior then yes it could be argued that it was a secret commission

Its only through the courts then this secret commission thing I take it.

Since October 2005 brokers advising on residential mortgages have been obligated by regulation to fully disclose commission although the FSA says brokers advising on non-residential mortgages, such as buy-to-let, protection products and general insurance do not have to.

But all fee-based advisers are obligated to disclose commission under agency law because, in the eyes of the law, the fee means they are acting as an agent of the client and if they receive commission, which the client has not given informed consent to, a conflict of interest arises.

Basically the law considers any undisclosed commission a bribe.


How does this help with PPI though?

dreamer33

Incipience this below could go with what you have been saying about the issues surrounding FOS and who do you go to Broker/lender


When a lender points a finger at someone else, they should remember that four of their fingers are pointing at themselves

lumley76

does anyone have any idea how long ti should take when the FO is involved with reclaiming PPI
Thanks

pinknico

What stage are you at with the FOS?

dreamer33

lumley76 wrote: »

does anyone have any idea how long ti should take when the FO is involved with reclaiming PPI
Thanks

Some have been waiting for over a year:eek:

Incipience

marshallka wrote: »

Its only through the courts then this secret commission thing I take it.

Since October 2005 brokers advising on residential mortgages have been obligated by regulation to fully disclose commission although the FSA says brokers advising on non-residential mortgages, such as buy-to-let, protection products and general insurance do not have to.

But all fee-based advisers are obligated to disclose commission under agency law because, in the eyes of the law, the fee means they are acting as an agent of the client and if they receive commission, which the client has not given informed consent to, a conflict of interest arises.

Basically the law considers any undisclosed commission a bribe.


How does this help with PPI though?

Your are talking about FSA regulation, the FSA has adopted the principles of agency here, and is making it clear.

It helps in PPI especially when brokers are concerned because

1. Broker Receives Commission From Lender (Breach for not disclosing)
2. Lender Recieved Commission from Insurer (Breach for not disclosing)
3. Lender Pays Broker (Lender is party to brokers breach)
4. Insurer Pays Lender (Insurer is party to lenders breach)

marshallka

Incipience wrote: »

Common Law Principles of Agency is a law that has been in force for many years and pre-dates any of the claims on here.

However, this is not something which you can fight yourself, not unless you have the balls to go up against a QC, a Judge and a load of Junior Counsel.

Gosh, I wouldn't dream of fighting something like that myself:eek: . I mean little me against these great big firms. I wouldn't know where to start. I would certainly always need a solicitor in anything like that.....an unregulated firm if the FOS could not help, hell no. I just wouldn't dare threaten them with these agency laws. No you are right, if a firm is unregulated and its a broker or lender and you have no recourse then its definately over to someone else.:rotfl: :rotfl: .

It was just like that with mine and Firstplus. The broker not being regulated and in GIB of all places (although I did deal with FREEDOM FINANCE here:rolleyes: ). :eek: I had to give up in the end and now its against Firstplus. (and the insurers of course!!!) I wouldn't have known where to start. What to put in letters etc. It just would have got to me. No-one could do it themselves. Unless they were prepared for what you said:D . And all alone in doing it...too weak to know where to begin and carry it through.