Norton finance

sue149

petermb wrote: »

You should be claiming for both loans from FP rather than Norton. If your First loan was arranged through Norton there will be a undisclosed broker fee due to you, which was enhanced by the sale of the PPI. These additional amounts will affect the interest rate and subsequently what you repay.

very confusing what does all that mean and what do you think i should do get back too f/p or norton

jessie15

"bumping this"

petermb_2

jessie15 wrote: »

"bumping this"

The lenders will always give you the impression that the problem lies with the broker.
There are more issues than just mis-selling and these go back to the lender.
So the lender is always the one you should claim from. Yes it means that there is likely to be more compensation by doing this than just going after the broker re mis-selling alone.

marshallka

petermb wrote: »

The lenders will always give you the impression that the problem lies with the broker.
There are more issues than just mis-selling and these go back to the lender.
So the lender is always the one you should claim from. Yes it means that there is likely to be more compensation by doing this than just going after the broker re mis-selling alone.

So in a PPI claim we go to the lender for this???

Can we then go to the FOS and claim for being misled by the FSA etc in that we go to the broker for misselling of PPI. Surely if what you are saying is true then we are being misled by FOS etc.????

Also we always say on this site to go to the company that sold the PPI ???

sue149

thank you all for you replies i think im gonna write again too f/p and norton im not happy with this like i say all paperwork is f/p and i was paying the ppi yo them not norton

petermb_2

marshallka wrote: »

So in a PPI claim we go to the lender for this???

Can we then go to the FOS and claim for being misled by the FSA etc in that we go to the broker for misselling of PPI. Surely if what you are saying is true then we are being misled by FOS etc.????

Also we always say on this site to go to the company that sold the PPI ???

As I said before, Who actually sells the PPI? It is the lender who chooses who they place thePPI business with and it is the lender who directly receives the commission from that insurance company. They then pass part of that commission on to the broker. So you make your own minds up as to who actually sells the policy. It is too easy to blame brokers. Convenient!

I will make no comment on the merits of the advice given by either the FOS or the FSA, however are you aware that to a man, every salary paid in the FOS is paid for by the institutions themselves? I recall a Radio 4 programme a few years ago, that discussed this very subject and highlighted and questioned the financial bonus structure that existed within that organisation.

marshallka

petermb wrote: »

As I said before, Who actually sells the PPI? It is the lender who chooses who they place thePPI business with and it is the lender who directly receives the commission from that insurance company. They then pass part of that commission on to the broker. So you make your own minds up as to who actually sells the policy. It is too easy to blame brokers. Convenient!

I will make no comment on the merits of the advice given by either the FOS or the FSA, however are you aware that to a man, every salary paid in the FOS is paid for by the institutions themselves? I recall a Radio 4 programme a few years ago, that discussed this very subject and highlighted and questioned the financial bonus structure that existed within that organisation.

Yes peter. I believe corruption happens everywhere. I was just saying though if what you are saying is true and our complaints against brokers are turned away from the FOS due to their rules and what you are saying here about the lenders is "true" then surely there can be lots of complaints about this matter of actually being misled by FOS etc. There must be a set block of rules on misselling surely? Surely the courts have a set of rules on misselling? How can FOS act on something that the courts would look at otherwise maybe?

petermb_2

marshallka wrote: »

Yes peter. I believe corruption happens everywhere. I was just saying though if what you are saying is true and our complaints against brokers are turned away from the FOS due to their rules and what you are saying here about the lenders is "true" then surely there can be lots of complaints about this matter of actually being misled by FOS etc. There must be a set block of rules on misselling surely? Surely the courts have a set of rules on misselling? How can FOS act on something that the courts would look at otherwise maybe?

This is where the confusion is. Let me clarify. The FOS acts on a specific remit and works under FSA regulation time frames. Yes? What has that got to do with the courts? The FOS are not a court, merely an arbritration service. They have no power and no teeth. The courts do.

That is why I suggest that the courts and the threat of court action is the way to seek true compensation. Not just for mis-selling. I keep beating on about the other issues which can add to the amount of compensation.

marshallka

petermb wrote: »

This is where the confusion is. Let me clarify. The FOS acts on a specific remit and works under FSA regulation time frames. Yes? What has that got to do with the courts? The FOS are not a court, merely an arbritration service. They have no power and no teeth. The courts do.

That is why I suggest that the courts and the threat of court action is the way to seek true compensation. Not just for mis-selling. I keep beating on about the other issues which can add to the amount of compensation.

So who is it that gives the rules to the FSA? Sorry if I am being thick here. Who is responsible for the rules that we go to the broker on these misselling and why does the FOS turn us away if we say we want to make the lender responsible?

FOS does follow some legalisations
The legislation and rules that set out officially what complaints we can and cannot look at (our "jurisdiction") are very complex.

Although it also says here

If you ask us to look into your complaint, we will explain any particular rules and restrictions that may apply in your own individual case – and we will always give you the chance to query anything you don’t understand.

Which was not the case for lots on here. They just dismiss them and say "its not within our jurisdiction" with no real explanation to the individual case.

petermb_2

marshallka wrote: »

So who is it that gives the rules to the FSA? Sorry if I am being thick here. Who is responsible for the rules that we go to the broker on these misselling and why does the FOS turn us away if we say we want to make the lender responsible?

FOS does follow some legalisations
The legislation and rules that set out officially what complaints we can and cannot look at (our "jurisdiction") are very complex.

Although it also says here

If you ask us to look into your complaint, we will explain any particular rules and restrictions that may apply in your own individual case – and we will always give you the chance to query anything you don’t understand.

Which was not the case for lots on here. They just dismiss them and say "its not within our jurisdiction" with no real explanation to the individual case.

The FOS has been created by the institutions with cooperation from the FSA as a means to deal with complaints against the lenders, yes? This was done primarily to look at the endowment scandal, etc. It was never anticipated that something on the scale of the ppi scandal would be encountered. Dont forget that the FOS was unaware of ppi mis-selling and the other issues when it was created. It was obiously aimed at the insurance industry orginally re brokers, salesmen and the insurance companies. They were all regulated by PIA(Personal Investments Authority) before the FSA existed.

The first real signs of a new scandal (PPI) did not really emerge until 2004.

You have to remember that much of the FSA is about damage limitation as much as protecting the public. I recal reading a trade article from the then head of the FSA stating that the endowment issues had been dumbed down by the FSA themselves to ensure that no insurance companies went to the wall at the time.This shows that they are perhaps more about maintaining the status quo.

All this really has little to do with the real issues surrounding Compensation claims. The FOS does not look at unenforceable agreements. It does not look at non-disclosure of commissions and how that effects every payment you make on your loan.

These additional issues have a great effect on your loan and how much you pay and ultimately how much compensation you might ultimately receive. Trust me, the lenders have been very busy in the background getting the odd law tweeked here and there to assist in protecting themselves anmd mitigating the possible claims that could be run against them.