PPI Reclaiming Discussion part 4

Incipience

marshallka wrote: »

Easy to understand if you cannot determine the seller!!

I asked what about if both the lender and the broker say its the broker and then the FOS agree!!

As you "understand" this dreamer33, (I don't!!) then perhaps you can elaborate for others.

Marshallka, you only discovered this after the fact. If no one told you who was responsible then you would of assumed the lender to be, based on the lenders assertions and the documentation provided.

Now you are being told it was the broker. However you will not be able to pursue the broker in most cases as they were not members of GISC..

Now in the case of FIRSTPLUS, they were members of GISC and the policy documentation states the protection you are entitled to under the sale of the policy.

Now as the broker was not covered by GISC, then why the assertions to the Protection. Well because the lender wanted you to think you were protected, and therefore made a negligent misrepresentation that is wholly unlawful.

Now on the balance of probability you have to weigh up who was ultimately responsible, you can therefore argue that by the Lenders assertions in the Policy Document they were responsbile, and as the Broker was acting as an agent then the lender has a responsibility.

Furthermore, as companies such as FIRSTPLUS only sold one Policy, they were not acting in your best interests, as cleary other more suitable policies such as Income Protection would have been more appropriate and ultimately cheaper.

It should also be noted that the Broker would have only sold you the loan and policy based on the higher commissions paid from FIRSTPLUS, so FIRSTPLUS basically bribed the Broker into selling you their policy/loan above more suitable and ultimately cheaper ones.

So you can see the chain of events that had led to the policy.

Did the Broker Sell the Policy, well the really could not have as this was a Lender Policy, and they lender was only authorised to sell it.

The broker would be able to sell the loan as they were acting for the lender. However the Payment Protection Policy is a different story as the broker could not sell under licence of the Lenders GISC membership without the lender authorising such, and with that authorisation would come liability.

Now you will not get the lender to admit such, they will state the broker was an independant third party, which in itself would be a lie, as someone who passes all loans to a single lender offering the highest commission can not be deemed to be independant.

The FOS state that GENERALLY the broker is responsible, I will bet your response from the FOS will mention the term GENERALLY as they know this is not always the case.

Furthermore... again the Policy was the only Policy Sold by the lender, it is therefore the responsibility of the lender to ensure that the policy is suitable. The lender knows that these policies are not suitable, because they may MASSIVE profits from it.. and if they only sold loans, then no real profit would be made.

The Key Arguments Are:

1. Lender Branded Loan and Policy so know way of knowing otherwise
2. Lender made promise to protection under its FSA/GISC membership
3. Lender was negligent in insuring that the Policy being sold was suitable.
4. Lender Failed to give prominence to strict conditions in the contract that affect your financial position.
5. The Lender Decieved you by making false claims to the protection you would be entitled to.
6. The Lender negligently failed to evaluate fully and disclose all protection options.
7. The Lenders Commission (bribes) was an incentive for the broker to push the sale of PPI onto you despite it being unsuitable.
8. The Lender Excessively Profited from the sale, and continues to do so whilst the broker got a single payment.

The broker, of course has to take responsibility also, however the lender was party to the brokers actions, had the lender not incentivised the broker to commit fradulent misrepresentations then the issue would not have happened.

Therefore your complaint going to the FOS, should be that of the Lender based on the points above. Yes the Policy was sold and was unsuitable, but that is not the whole issue.

If you goto the FOS on mis-selling then they have to just take into consideration WHO SOLD IT.. which will be a hit and miss.. however back it up with EVIDENCE and a directed complaint that not only was the Policy Mis-sold the Lenders actions were tantamount to the encouragement of the sale and ultimately its representation as to responsibility and protection was what ultimately made you agreed to the policy.. Without those assertions you would not have taken the policy.

So what you have here is ultimately 2 seperate issues that inter-connect.

I hope this has explained it more clearly.

Regardless, this is only one aspect of the larger picture.. You have many other issues with regards to the Agreement Itself and obviously the whole commission issues.

You have options.. you just have to decide to take one, or take them all.

SuzySu

Hi

Please can I have some advice. I took out a loan with Picture to which they added PPI to the value of just over £11,000. I had not heard of PPI and did not know that I could have refused it, or that it was a single premium policy added onto the loan.

I redeemed the majority of the loan in Sept 08 after selling my house, but I had a shortfall of just over £9,000 which Picture transferred to a personal loan.

Does anyone know how this affects my PPI? I have drafted the first letter claiming a full refund on general grounds (and having read Incipience's post regarding the Lender only selling their brand of PPI, I might add that to the letter too), but surely the £11,000 that I paid up front is now changed since the total loan only amounts to £9,000.

I'm a bit confused as to whether I have a case or not, but will give it a go. I just wondered whether by redeeming most of the loan, it affects anything.

Thanks and I hope I have explained it clearly....

marshallka

Incipience wrote: »

Marshallka, you only discovered this after the fact. If no one told you who was responsible then you would of assumed the lender to be, based on the lenders assertions and the documentation provided.

Now you are being told it was the broker. However you will not be able to pursue the broker in most cases as they were not members of GISC..

Now in the case of FIRSTPLUS, they were members of GISC and the policy documentation states the protection you are entitled to under the sale of the policy.

Now as the broker was not covered by GISC, then why the assertions to the Protection. Well because the lender wanted you to think you were protected, and therefore made a negligent misrepresentation that is wholly unlawful.

Now on the balance of probability you have to weigh up who was ultimately responsible, you can therefore argue that by the Lenders assertions in the Policy Document they were responsbile, and as the Broker was acting as an agent then the lender has a responsibility.

Furthermore, as companies such as FIRSTPLUS only sold one Policy, they were not acting in your best interests, as cleary other more suitable policies such as Income Protection would have been more appropriate and ultimately cheaper.

It should also be noted that the Broker would have only sold you the loan and policy based on the higher commissions paid from FIRSTPLUS, so FIRSTPLUS basically bribed the Broker into selling you their policy/loan above more suitable and ultimately cheaper ones.

So you can see the chain of events that had led to the policy.

Did the Broker Sell the Policy, well the really could not have as this was a Lender Policy, and they lender was only authorised to sell it.

The broker would be able to sell the loan as they were acting for the lender. However the Payment Protection Policy is a different story as the broker could not sell under licence of the Lenders GISC membership without the lender authorising such, and with that authorisation would come liability.

Now you will not get the lender to admit such, they will state the broker was an independant third party, which in itself would be a lie, as someone who passes all loans to a single lender offering the highest commission can not be deemed to be independant.

The FOS state that GENERALLY the broker is responsible, I will bet your response from the FOS will mention the term GENERALLY as they know this is not always the case.

Furthermore... again the Policy was the only Policy Sold by the lender, it is therefore the responsibility of the lender to ensure that the policy is suitable. The lender knows that these policies are not suitable, because they may MASSIVE profits from it.. and if they only sold loans, then no real profit would be made.

The Key Arguments Are:

1. Lender Branded Loan and Policy so know way of knowing otherwise
2. Lender made promise to protection under its FSA/GISC membership
3. Lender was negligent in insuring that the Policy being sold was suitable.
4. Lender Failed to give prominence to strict conditions in the contract that affect your financial position.
5. The Lender Decieved you by making false claims to the protection you would be entitled to.
6. The Lender negligently failed to evaluate fully and disclose all protection options.
7. The Lenders Commission (bribes) was an incentive for the broker to push the sale of PPI onto you despite it being unsuitable.
8. The Lender Excessively Profited from the sale, and continues to do so whilst the broker got a single payment.

The broker, of course has to take responsibility also, however the lender was party to the brokers actions, had the lender not incentivised the broker to commit fradulent misrepresentations then the issue would not have happened.

Therefore your complaint going to the FOS, should be that of the Lender based on the points above. Yes the Policy was sold and was unsuitable, but that is not the whole issue.

If you goto the FOS on mis-selling then they have to just take into consideration WHO SOLD IT.. which will be a hit and miss.. however back it up with EVIDENCE and a directed complaint that not only was the Policy Mis-sold the Lenders actions were tantamount to the encouragement of the sale and ultimately its representation as to responsibility and protection was what ultimately made you agreed to the policy.. Without those assertions you would not have taken the policy.

So what you have here is ultimately 2 seperate issues that inter-connect.

I hope this has explained it more clearly.

Regardless, this is only one aspect of the larger picture.. You have many other issues with regards to the Agreement Itself and obviously the whole commission issues.

You have options.. you just have to decide to take one, or take them all.

thanks for that incipience. I get the feeling you think I am a quitter here:eek: .

I NEVER quit til I have won if I feel strong enough about something. I just want this all explaining on here for others thats all.

There are all sorts of ways of getting your money back.:D Its just knowing the correct wording and being prepared to take them thru the courts. Hard but some can do it alone and have. Its determination, I agree to that, and also not giving up for months/years and then taking it back up. You just have to pursue and pursue and learn and learn.

marshallka

SuzySu wrote: »

Hi

Please can I have some advice. I took out a loan with Picture to which they added PPI to the value of just over £11,000. I had not heard of PPI and did not know that I could have refused it, or that it was a single premium policy added onto the loan.

I redeemed the majority of the loan in Sept 08 after selling my house, but I had a shortfall of just over £9,000 which Picture transferred to a personal loan.

Does anyone know how this affects my PPI? I have drafted the first letter claiming a full refund on general grounds (and having read Incipience's post regarding the Lender only selling their brand of PPI, I might add that to the letter too), but surely the £11,000 that I paid up front is now changed since the total loan only amounts to £9,000.

I'm a bit confused as to whether I have a case or not, but will give it a go. I just wondered whether by redeeming most of the loan, it affects anything.

Thanks and I hope I have explained it clearly....

Am sure Pinknico will be along shortly to answer;)

liam12779

havent got the paperwork for the loans but surely the bank would be able to supply them? Just reading what people are saying on here about being mis-sold and remember the pressure put on me to take the insurance out, as if they wre saying 'if you dont then you wont get approve for the loan'.

Thanks for your advice!!!

di3004

SuzySu wrote: »

Hi

Please can I have some advice. I took out a loan with Picture to which they added PPI to the value of just over £11,000. I had not heard of PPI and did not know that I could have refused it, or that it was a single premium policy added onto the loan.

I redeemed the majority of the loan in Sept 08 after selling my house, but I had a shortfall of just over £9,000 which Picture transferred to a personal loan.

Does anyone know how this affects my PPI? I have drafted the first letter claiming a full refund on general grounds (and having read Incipience's post regarding the Lender only selling their brand of PPI, I might add that to the letter too), but surely the £11,000 that I paid up front is now changed since the total loan only amounts to £9,000.

I'm a bit confused as to whether I have a case or not, but will give it a go. I just wondered whether by redeeming most of the loan, it affects anything.

Thanks and I hope I have explained it clearly....

Hi there

You could have a case here.

Don't know if you are aware, but currently Picture are being dealt with by the FSCS (financial compensation scheme) as they stopped trading earlier last year I believe.

I would contact the FSCS here who will arrange to send you out a form to claim where you write your complaint of your PPI to them, they are currently investigating this company and hopefully this will be resolved soon, it makes no difference if settled or not.

FSCS details here:
http://www.fscs.org.uk/contacts/

Please feel free to post up and Pinknico here also has an application within the FSCS about this company.

Good luck and please let us know how you get on thanks.

marshallka

Can anyone remember Tiggrae posting this to me about Fiduciary Duty many many months ago. She seemed to think it wrong. I just wanted to show others views onn this matter. Not that I took any notice lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiggrae
I really don't think you can claim breach of Fiduciary Duty, that is the highest standard of care in the English Courts and is usually reserved for a person acting as a Trustee. The fiduciary duty is a legal relationship between two or more parties (most commonly a "fiduciary" or "trustee" and a "principal" or "beneficiary") that in English common law is arguably the most important concept within the portion of the legal system known as equity

What they owed you in tort is a Duty of Care, you have to be careful what you put in writing as it can be seen as Libeless

---

I then replied




I have googled "fiduciary duty" here

Fiduciary duty

People who occupy positions of trust (fiduciaries) have specific obligations to those people who place their trust in them and must:

• ensure that they have the necessary knowledge to perform their duties
• disclose any limitations, conflicts of interest or issues that would prevent them from performing their duties appropriately
• comply with any legal and professional requirements that relate to their roles, and also with any relevant ethical guidelines
• not take unfair advantage of their relationship (e.g. misuse information) in a way that could have adverse effects for those who place their confidence in them.

This fiduciary duty has similarities to the implied duties that we have under employment contracts.

I thought it was "fiduciary duty"?????

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...fiduciary+duty




I wanted Incipience to take a look at what I was told. Didn't change my view though:D

pinknico

I wonder how Tiggrae is, have'nt seen her for a while.

marshallka

pinknico wrote: »

I wonder how Tiggrae is, have'nt seen her for a while.

Haven't seen here ever :eek:

She has added lekky and gas claims to her site.

What do you think on this fiduciary duty thing that she told me Pinknico. She said it could be libel!!!!!

mrs_wul

Hi

Q I havr a personal loan with Northern Rock. Was informed that in order to get the loan I would have to take out the PPI. Which I stupidly done !!

Phoned them recently in order to make a complaint re the PPI. I was informed that they could cancel it but "would have to restart the loan" with the amount that is left on it, which would accrue all the interest again.

Is this correct - can they do this??

I think I have a claim

Any assistance is appreciated