PPI on a Car Loan following early retirement

dunstonh

Imagine my surprise then, when we received ALL of the documentation back from the FOS! I cannot for the life of me understand why an organisation would do this - surely, you keep all the correspondance on file for easy reference?

I suspect they scan it like everyone else does nowadays.

I thought the FOS was supposed to help the consumer - not be of benefit to the Financial companies!

It is neither of those. It is an independent adjudicator of complaints. It will tell you that it has no bias either way although because it will slightly favour consumers (compared to a court of law) on the basis of fairness, it is just slightly consumer biased.

Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions regarding this?

Before an adjudicator or ombudsman even look at a case, they have a filter system to make sure that you are eligible to complain and that the basic documents are in place to allow the case to be referred to an adjudicator. Its possible that the person doing the filtering didn't see the deadlock letter as there wasnt one and didnt notice where you had said on your complaint that it had gone past 8 weeks. So, they returned it thinking you were not yet eligible to use them.

Contact them again and make it clear that more than 8 weeks have gone past and that is why you are referring it to them.

Laitty

Blimey - its 12 months since I started this post and complained about the PPI. Its still not resolved!

The current situation is that it is now with an adjudicator at the FOS. what has surprised me is that up until a letter we received 5 days ago, we have never really been asked to provide any 'witness statement' to the events that went on. Indeed, they've never actually asked us to clarify the points raised on the form (about why we felt it was mis-sold). Should we write to the FOS and send them a 'witness' statement about how we kept at the showroom for five hours without refreshments, were not allowed to leave until we'd been sold a car etc?

And now the next point. On the day we received a letter from the FOS informing us that the adjudicator had now taken the case on (no idea how long that will take), we also had a letter from Welcome Finance's in-house Debt Collectors Red2Black chasing the outstanding amount which we've refused to pay whilst the account has been in dispute. Furthermore, they've now started to ring every day as well. I was under the impresion that when an account is in dispute they couldn't do this - nor sell it on?

Of course, we'll be sending copies of the DCA letters to the FOS as we believe that this is a desperate attempt to 'badger' the witnesses but if anyone has got any thoughts, or advice, I'd love to hear them.

Thanks in advance.

Laitty

Esoog

were not allowed to leave until we'd been sold a car etc?

Personally, I wouldn't include that. Are you seriously saying they physically would not let you leave? That's called being taken hostage

Laitty

I'm after more advice....but this time I think its the end of the road.

I have today received a letter from the FOS informing me that I've lost our complaint against Welcome Finance. I'm gutted....absolutely gutted. The FOS itself publicises the fact that Welcome lose 96% of their cases, so to be one of the 4% to be turned is, quite frankly, stunning.

The reasons for the complaint not to be upheld. The FOS reckon the Demands and Needs statement signed by my Dad (under pressure from Welcome Finance) is the be all and end all. This bit of paperwork was given to us amongst all the other papers to be signed....after we'd been there for five hours, and they had made it absolutely clear that without the PPI we would not be leaving with a car....and they weren't going to let us leave without a car. A copy of this Demands and Needs statement has not been supplied to us - nor, incidentally has any other paperwork that welcome have supplied to the FOS therefore giving us no right of appeal against any document that they may have supplied.

As you can read above, my Dad retired whilst the policy was in place. He tried to cancel and despite a clear term in the cover saying we could cancel at any time, he was told he could not because the loan had already commenced. Welcome did offer us compensation on this of £1,500 which we rejected - and now the FOS haven't even given that to us. It seems to be our fault.

It was not explained to us properly that cover was available elsewhere. My Dad had pensions, medical insurance, and life insurance via his works to 3 times his salary. He would also get paid for 6 months if off work sick. However, this apparently did not cover him in times of sickness of unemployment....despite the fact that only 12 months cover was available via this PPI.

All told the PPI cost £5,000 on a £7,000 care. He would have been covered. It wasn't sold to us correctly. It wasn't administered correctly....and yet we have been utterly screwed by the FOS.

If anyone has any advice about where to go now, or what to do (we can of course appeal the decision by taking it an Ombudsman rather than an adjudicator), then I'd love to know....but right now, I'm feeling incredibly depressed and that I've let my family down.

di3004

Hi

I would definately keep this going with the FOS and as they have given you the opportunity to go to the ombudsman to have this reviewed.

Hopefully someone will have some good advice to give you on this and will post soon.
Good luck.;)

dunstonh

The FOS itself publicises the fact that Welcome lose 96% of their cases, so to be one of the 4% to be turned is, quite frankly, stunning.

This is because they had heavy numbers of single premium and no statement of demands and needs.

The FOS reckon the Demands and Needs statement signed by my Dad (under pressure from Welcome Finance) is the be all and end all.

So, it is a more recent case when they were more compliant. The demands and needs was designed to improve compliance and provide an audit trail. So, the fact it exists is pretty strong evidence.

Remember that having PPI is not a mis-sale. It's how it was sold. Or more importantly, how it is documented that is was sold. Its the old 4 truths principle. What you said happened (which wont be the full truth), what they said happened (which wont be the full truth), what actually happened (which often cannot be proven) and lastly how all that is interpreted.

Laitty

Car was bought in Feb 2005. Demands & Needs statement was signed by my Dad because otherwise, Welcome Finance refused to sell him a car. There was no discussion - no alternatives offered - no discussion on what cover was available. No discussion over the costs.

It was a case of sign, or you don't get credit and ergo the car.

dunstonh

It was a case of sign, or you don't get credit and ergo the car.

If you have evidence of that then you have a strong case. If there is no evidence of that then you dont. Documented evidence is King most of the time. Here say and verbal has little weight attached to it if documentary evidence is available.

Laitty

Well, I've continued the battle.....but have lost again. The same adjudicator who made the original decision doesn't believe there is enough evidence to change her mind. This despite telling her that we haven't filled the D&N statement in, that we were never made aware that you could get 'other' PPI insurance at a much smaller cost because they were pressuring us into buying their PPI. Despite the PPI being sold to us by someone who is not qualified financially (a matter she still has not addressed). Hell, she hasn't in found in our favour regarding our (aborted by them) attempts to cancel the PPI. It seems to read that as we rejected their minimal compensation offer, we are no longer entitled to complain about this! Is that right?

To answer the above from Dunston....the Demands & Needs statement was NOT signed by Dad. It was not filled in by him at all (its not his writing on it, nor are they his ticks in the check boxes!). The document could have been raised at any time. Its a crucial piece of evidence and yet its provedence is called in to question. My Dad has signed a seperate sheet but there is no witness signature nor is it dated.

Very very down over this. Its difficult reading about how most people seem to be succeeding with their PPI and yet we've failed when we have a fairly strong case IMHO. We were completely and utterly pressurised in to taking out the PPI, it wasn't right for us, it was far too expensive, and it was sold by someone who was not qualified....and yet we lost?

Confused of Colchester.

dunstonh

To answer the above from Dunston....the Demands & Needs statement was NOT signed by Dad.

Doesnt need to be signed. I havent seen one that has.

It was not filled in by him at all (its not his writing on it, nor are they his ticks in the check boxes!).

Again, it doesnt need to be an isnt expected to be.

The document could have been raised at any time.

yes. However, it could also have been done at point of sale. Unless evidence points to the contrary then that would be the accepted position.

Its a crucial piece of evidence and yet its provedence is called in to question.

only by you. It wont be by anyone else unless there is something suspect about it.

My Dad has signed a seperate sheet but there is no witness signature nor is it dated.

You dont need witness signatures. That would be amazing overkill. The signature, if by itself doesnt support anything for or against.

Very very down over this. Its difficult reading about how most people seem to be succeeding with their PPI and yet we've failed when we have a fairly strong case IMHO

Most of the people succeeding dont have statements of demands and needs or any records at all. When they exist they are considered strong evidence.

We were completely and utterly pressurised in to taking out the PPI, it wasn't right for us, it was far too expensive, and it was sold by someone who was not qualified....and yet we lost?

You are allowed to be sold to. It is allowed to be expensive and it would have been sold by someone qualified to the required level (which isnt much beyond a simple course for loan PPI. It doesnt require advice level authorisations).

his despite telling her that we haven't filled the D&N statement in, that we were never made aware that you could get 'other' PPI insurance at a much smaller cost because they were pressuring us into buying their PPI.

This is one of those internet myths. They didnt have to let you know you can get it elsewhere cheaper.

Despite the PPI being sold to us by someone who is not qualified financially (a matter she still has not addressed).

What evidence do you have of that? Do you know the person hadnt been on the days training for it?

I'm not saying you are wrong but trying to highlight the reasons why you are getting the response you have.