Companies in Default/FSCS Claims - Picture, London Scottish, Twopart

busbyh

marshallka wrote: »

I am a bit behind with honey2 friends case but will have a butchers later at it???


If you look at the Ombudsman's cases upheld for PPI most of them are for bad advice but they are classed as "missold" and we are asked to be put back into the position as if we never had the PPI. I would see this as no different to what the FSCS is doing in that they are stating that you have been financially disadvantaged for being mis advised. If you are misadvised on a sale then again, I would think its missold???

I cannot understand how the FSCS can say in one verse, you have received bad advice and then in another, make a claim on your PPI if you need to. I think that if this is the case then FOS should also do this as a lot of cases they uphold are for bad advice and keep the policies in force just in case.:T

This is the first time FSCS have worked on this type of claim. Maybe they have now set a precedent as to how all future Insurance claims will be handled.

busbyh

di3004 wrote: »

I am thinking now, maybe that is why they are sending the PPI supplementary forms, for the ones with lack of info...perhaps??

They may not be for everyone, but if there is lack of evidence supplied from the actual business that bust, it could be the case, Pinknico also said something along these lines yesterday.

That would explain the supplementary forms , I would think

busbyh

di3004 wrote: »

I am going to contact Deloittes tomorrow on this one.

They only do have the calculations, and details of the lenders and our claim form, also a copy of the FOS letters/findings, suggesting that we were not given enough advice on the PPI, going by the recordings from the 2nd loan, and believe we did not understand the policy, where we should pursue through the broker on the first one (TWOPART) as it was possibly the case for that as well, in other words the ombudsman said we lacked knowledge of the policy going by the recordings, where he said it is obvious its going to be the same for the first loan.

If he said it obviously the same for the other one, he is directing them to be treated the same way, as in you were missold

busbyh

di3004 wrote: »

Just remembered something, when we received the letter back from the liquidators, it was then we rang the ICO, they said to contact the liquidators again, hubby done this and they said they held nothing, we then got back to the ICO, then it was then they said "there was little more we can do", so it was twice we contacted them.

So frustrating, really need the recordings to help with ours I think.

I must admit though, both me and hubby were "very slack" with insurance stuff, shame we did not learn about these mis selling issues at the time and not later.
The brokers and lenders probably loved us, as we never questioned on this, especially the twopart one.

That's if there are recordings. When there are recording made it states on the phone before you are put through "some calls MAY be recorded", I don't think I have ever heard a message say ALL calls ARE recorded. If they can't find a recording maybe they have to take your word for what was said.


As for being SLACK di, we are all guilty of that!!!!

di3004

busbyh wrote: »

If he said it obviously the same for the other one, he is directing them to be treated the same way, as in you were missold

Yeah maybe, lets hope this helps us in this case then hun.
Fingers crossed for us all.;)

busbyh

di3004 wrote: »

Sorry for all my posts........:o.

This was an email we went to Twopart/Eloan before it was confirmed they went into liquidation. We did not get a response, so that is when we wrote to them by hardcopy as well, then received that confirmation from the liquidators of them not being able to supply anything.


Good afternoon


Wonder if you could give me some information please.

We had a loan from Twopart/e-loan in Nov 2005 which was arranged by yourself and arranged the loan with Nemo Personal Finance.

We orginally received an SAR (Subject Assess request) from Nemo which I requested and paid for this, and they do not actually disclose the information from the start of the loan and stated this on their letter, they added they do not supply all data from the third parties etc.

Please can you advise me if Twopart/e-loan would supply this information form when this was sold from the start and let me know for as soon as possible.

Thank you I look forward to your email response.

Kindest Regards

Have you sent this copy to Deloittes. It is out of your hands if you cannot obtain the information. Maybe they (deloitte) have other ways and means of obtaining the required information

di3004

busbyh wrote: »

That's if there are recordings. When there are recording made it states on the phone before you are put through "some calls MAY be recorded", I don't think I have ever heard a message say ALL calls ARE recorded. If they can't find a recording maybe they have to take your word for what was said.


As for being SLACK di, we are all guilty of that!!!!

lol I remember reading the FOS findings and I did feel somewhat hurt, it was as if the ombudsman said the Mr & Mrs XXXXX obviously lacked knowledge of the Policy and some other stuff along the lines, and I felt really thick.......:o, it was the way it was wrote down, but I suppose they have to be honest, because listening back to the recorded calls, we did not sound with it at all.....:o

busbyh

di3004 wrote: »

lol I remember reading the FOS findings and I did feel somewhat hurt, it was as if the ombudsman said the Mr & Mrs XXXXX obviously lacked knowledge of the Policy and some other stuff along the lines, and I felt really thick.......:o, it was the way it was wrote down, but I suppose they have to be honest, because listening back to the recorded calls, we did not sound with it at all.....:o

So you actually received the recording not just a transcript. :eek: I think we would all probably be a little embarrased as to what we had said or lack of it.
This recording still bothers me a little with ours, as this is the only thing I cannot be 100% certain as in what was actually said, as it wasn't me who made the call.!!

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

lol I remember reading the FOS findings and I did feel somewhat hurt, it was as if the ombudsman said the Mr & Mrs XXXXX obviously lacked knowledge of the Policy and some other stuff along the lines, and I felt really thick.......:o, it was the way it was wrote down, but I suppose they have to be honest, because listening back to the recorded calls, we did not sound with it at all.....:o

Di, we all lacked knowledge of how single premium PPI worked and the FOS would not mean anything "personal" to you there. I think you are really very clever if that is anything to go by and would certainly not say you are "thick".

di3004

busbyh wrote: »

So you actually received the recording not just a transcript. :eek: I think we would all probably be a little embarrased as to what we had said or lack of it.
This recording still bothers me a little with ours, as this is the only thing I cannot be 100% certain as in what was actually said, as it wasn't me who made the call.!!

Yes on the 2nd one only though.

I'm sure it will all be okay for you hun.:beer: