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

busbyh

alyson1982 wrote: »

I sent the claim form back in MAY 2009 which doesn't seem that long ago but this baby must be eating away at my brain cells! At the end of the day we were lead to believe that our loan would not be succesful without the PPI and that we were both covered eventhough we told them that my partner was already covered but of course I ended up not being covered and he was! And we wern't given a price with and without the cover!!!!!

Lets hope it works out for everyone - you could actually drive yourself mad going over and over it in your head Lol!!

Sounds as though you have a good case to me

Did they tell you it was only for 5 years cover (I doubt it) and you would be paying for it for the duration of the loan, adding thousands of pounds to the cost, another reason for mis sell.

On our original agreement it only stated the amount of the PPI, but on the copy I requested from them it stated the cost and the amount of interest I could most likely pay. They had obviusly had to make amendments to the policy and provide us with this information which they should have done originally.
Our copy Had first named of front but the copy they sent me had no name on the front, and wait for this, it had the name of another couple on the inside. It gave thier full name and the nature of the serious illnesses they were suffering from. (I have yet to take this up with the Information Commissioner) But haad they not sent this to me I would not have been aware of the amendments they had to make in stating the full amount of the PPi that would be payable at the present rate of interest. A £9000 policy was to cost in the region of £17000 that was without rate increases.
good luck and send them as much as you can and keep copies.

busbyh

di3004 wrote: »

Just been digging the FOS info out which shows how they look into PPI complaints, also as like many of you have also confirmed on here, where the FSCS highly possible does the same, some parts from my FOS findings here below: (sorry if its a long one, will not write absolutely everything though, or I will never get to bed) lol

I am not not satisfied that a policy that lasted for 5 years of a 25 year loan was a suitable product to sell Mr & Mrs XXXXX, especially as it was not made absolutely clear to them that they would be paying for it for over 25 years.
Nemo have suggested that Mr & Mrs XXXXX could have taken the policy (to obtain the preferential rebate on redemption of the previous borrowing) but then should have cancelled the policy within the first 30 days.
However, I have seen no evidence that Nemo advised Mr & Mrs XXXXX to do this, either in the telephone conversations or the subsequent communications.

It is clear that Mr & Mrs XXXXX "did not fully understand" the transaction or the implications of taking the Single Premium PPI policy and if is for that reason that I consider that the policy was mis-sold.

That is good di.

They are not for real are they, if you had done what they are saying you could have done no doubt they would have clawed it back off you.

If the FSCS do look at it the same way that is good as that it what I have just said to Alyson about hers.

Cheers di and thanks for that:A
Must o to bed now, up early for work tomorrow, will post as soon as I get home

di3004

More from the FOS here:

When Nemo sold the policy in connection with this loan it had a responsibility to ensure that Mr & Mrs XXXXX were able to make an informed choice as to whether or not to purchase it.
The type of policy that sold i:e. a Single Premium policy with fairly oneous cancellation condition, where the premium is payable upfront and added to the loan, made it even more important for Nemo to ensure that Mr & Mrs XXXXX understood exactly how the transaction worked, including the overall cost and penalty for cancelling the policy early.

Nemo cannot provide any convincing evidence that the transaction was clearly explained to Mr & Mrs XXXXX and I am not satisfied that simply detailing the insurance premium plus interest on the loan agreement and providing a policy wording was sufficient to fulfil its obligations and enable Mr & Mrs XXXXX to make an informed choice.

I am not pursuaded that signing the documentation confirming they agreed to the PPI they must have appreciated how the transaction worked.
In my opinion, it is difficult for a Lay-person to understand this type of transaction until someone actually takes the time to fully explain it to them, and therefore, I consider that an individual may well enter into this sort of arrangement unwittingly without understanding the full implications of what they are doing.

As shown on the recordings, the fact that Mr & Mrs XXXXX were told that the only way they could refinance would be to take the loan with the PPI, means that they were not given any choice about whether to take the policy or not, if they wanted the loan "they had to have the policy".

I am satisfied that if they fully understood the implications of purchasing such a policy and the true cost of doing so, they would not have taken out the policy and simply taken the loan without the insurance protection.

...............................................................................................

I expect this is the case for many of us FSCS claimers, and if they look at this the same way then it should all be okay.;)

di3004

busbyh wrote: »

That is good di.

They are not for real are they, if you had done what they are saying you could have done no doubt they would have clawed it back off you.

If the FSCS do look at it the same way that is good as that it what I have just said to Alyson about hers.

Cheers di and thanks for that:A
Must o to bed now, up early for work tomorrow, will post as soon as I get home

Your welcome hun.;)

Sorry added more again above........:o in case any of it also occurs to anyone on here.

You have a good night hun, good luck for tomorrow and don't work too hard, we shall be here for when your home.:A
Sweet dreams XXX

busbyh

di3004 wrote: »

more from the fos here:

when nemo sold the policy in connection with this loan it had a responsibility to ensure that mr & mrs xxxxx were able to make an informed choice as to whether or not to purchase it.
the type of policy that sold i:e. A single premium policy with fairly oneous cancellation condition, where the premium is payable upfront and added to the loan, made it even more important for nemo to ensure that mr & mrs xxxxx understood exactly how the transaction worked, including the overall cost and penalty for cancelling the policy early.

nemo cannot provide any convincing evidence that the transaction was clearly explained to mr & mrs xxxxx and i am not satisfied that simply detailing the insurance premium plus interest on the loan agreement and providing a policy wording was sufficient to fulfil its obligations and enable mr & mrs xxxxx to make an informed choice.

i am not pursuaded that signing the documentation confirming they agreed to the ppi they must have appreciated how the transaction worked.
in my opinion, it is difficult for a lay-person to understand this type of transaction until someone actually takes the time to fully explain it to them, and therefore, i consider that an individual may well enter into this sort of arrangement unwittingly without understanding the full implications of what they are doing.

as shown on the recordings, the fact that mr & mrs xxxxx were told that the only way they could refinance would be to take the loan with the ppi, means that they were not given any choice about whether to take the policy or not, if they wanted the loan "they had to have the policy".

i am satisfied that if they fully understood the implications of purchasing such a policy and the true cost of doing so, they would not have taken out the policy and simply taken the loan without the insurance protection.

...............................................................................................

i expect this is the case for many of us fscs claimers, and if they look at this the same way then it should all be okay.;)

fantastic di
thank you::A:Awill post tomorrow
night night

di3004

Sweet dreams everyone, I shall be here sometime in the morning, hope those posts above helps.:AXxXx


Fingers crossed for everyone for tomorrow.:beer::beer:

dialysis

Morning all hope you have all slept well and good luck for today. I am really nervous this morning hoping this will come as dont want to have to ring fscs again and dont think I will be able to hold my nerve. Hope you hear something today.

pinknico

marshallka wrote: »

If the insurance was for your OH and he is going to win on "bad advice" then be careful how you add anything now to your complaint as stating that could mean "it was not an advised sale" if your OH was never spoken to at all.

No need to add to my complaint, its already left Deloitte and this is all written in black and white on the demands and needs statement even that this was an advised sale.

marshallka

pinknico wrote: »

No need to add to my complaint, its already left Deloitte and this is all written in black and white on the demands and needs statement even that this was an advised sale.

Ok, just a thought really. If no advice was actually given the this could be classed as non advised and they could state this. With non advised then no advice is actually given although you still have to have all the information for you to make a choice but there is no conversation about it. Just know how these companies can use this one against you sometimes. :mad:

pinknico

Yes Marshallka, they will try and get out of it through any loophole they can find.