PPI claim against Welcome Underwriters

di3004

I suppose all I can do now is hope.
But yes I do have a feeling they won't bother with it as well.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Cheers Marshallka, glad you found this info.:T

I just wish that we had those details you had posted last night to prove this now, as we did not have these before.
HFC were governed I believe from 2003 or even earlier, I think anyway, not certain though.

FOS is making insurers reponsible if brokers/lenders were not regulated at the time of sales. HFC is not an insurer as far as I am aware, if you had followed the advice from FOS it could have all been sorted for you now and you may have won misselling.

WIth mine Firstplus were the lender and the insurer was Cassidy Davis. Then the underwriters were Lloyds of London and although the complaint is against LLoyds of London it was FOS that got in touch for me after doing what you did. I had a call then from Cassidy Davis to ask me to write to Firstplus for them to release the file to them. Cassidy Davis then relay information to Lloyds and its Lloyds who FOS are in contact with but only cause Lloyds are under Compulsory Jurisdiction. This is how these complaints are getting through against insurers. They have to be actual insurers and regulated under the insurance ombudsman.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

FOS is making insurers reponsible if brokers/lenders were not regulated at the time of sales. HFC is not an insurer as far as I am aware, if you had followed the advice from FOS it could have all been sorted for you now and you may have won misselling.

WIth mine Firstplus were the lender and the insurer was Cassidy Davis. Then the underwriters were Lloyds of London and although the complaint is against LLoyds of London it was FOS that got in touch for me after doing what you did. I had a call then from Cassidy Davis to ask me to write to Firstplus for them to release the file to them. Cassidy Davis then relay information to Lloyds and its Lloyds who FOS are in contact with but only cause Lloyds are under Compulsory Jurisdiction. This is how these complaints are getting through against insurers. They have to be actual insurers and regulated under the insurance ombudsman.

So I could just wait and see what the FOS say on Monday I suppose, and take it from there, in regards of Hamiltons, especially if they are now thinking of making insurers responsible?

di3004

Hubby just rang the FOS and spoke to a gent about this, taken a while though to get through, he said they will consider taking personal matters into account with this, hubby explained we also left an email with the consultant as well about this, the guy said it seems like there have been some messing about with this one and see what they say on Monday, if we don't get an email back, we have to ring.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

It was about the rebate wasnt it and not the mis selling?
Need to really think now and find old docs.

From what I remember it was just the rebate, taken it that direction instead of the mis selling, just found some SAR paperwork, and it states Complaint of unfair rebate, not resolved.

I would just send it to the FOS in the hope. You just have to hope they see it as another complaint and not anything whatsoever to do with the rebate one as they are quite witin their rights to say naff off to the FOS. I got explained this from FOS in that my complaint against FP was taken on twice and thrown out twice but they have said it was cause FP TOLD them they did not have any jurisdiction over it. FOS had to listen to that then cause they were within their rights.


FOS take them on OK but then the jurisdiction issues can stop them. I realise you have had some personal issues but won't you have to explain why as its been so long? Can't you remember the two on here that FOS would have nothing to do with and the person was asked to get proof that they had attended a hospital 10 miles a way daily etc for 6 months. I thought they were pretty strict on it.


From the FOS site

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]when did the event complained about take place?

[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Ordinarily, we can deal with complaints only if they are made within the relevant time limits. Those making a complaint have:[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]six years to bring the complaint to us, from the date of the event complained about; or[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1](if later) three years from the date when they knew, or should have known, that they had cause for complaint. [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1] If they do not refer the complaint to us within that time, they must be able to produce some record (such as a written acknowledgement) that the bank or building society concerned received the complaint within the time limit. In any event, the complaint must be referred to us within six months of any final response letter from the bank or building society.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]We can waive the time limits in exceptional circumstances – for example, if someone was unable to submit the complaint in time because they were seriously ill in hospital. And there are special time limits for mortgage endowment complaints.[/SIZE][/FONT]

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

I would just send it to the FOS in the hope. You just have to hope they see it as another complaint and not anything whatsoever to do with the rebate one as they are quite witin their rights to say naff off to the FOS. I got explained this from FOS in that my complaint against FP was taken on twice and thrown out twice but they have said it was cause FP TOLD them they did not have any jurisdiction over it. FOS had to listen to that then cause they were within their rights.

Cheers Marshallka, you have been Fab, will let you know what they say as well on Monday.;)
Its been a right pain for you haven't it?

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Cheers Marshallka, you have been Fab, will let you know what they say as well on Monday.;)
Its been a right pain for you haven't it?

You really NEED this accepted as a NEW complaint Di.

di3004

Forgot to say, the gent said it would be helpful if we could send copies of the statements of the mortgage letters of arrears and bank statements and if the GP will provide info of hubby's depression etc, things like that and that we are under the CCCS as well, they want their details.
We have all these to send, hubby due to GP check up as well and he is a great GP, so hopefully this should all help, fingers crossed, although not going to hold any hopes on it.

Basically hubby explained the situation, that we have been from pillar to post and not knowing where to turn, due to being told go here and go there, he also told him that we have "now recently" found some info in regards of underwriters etc, and we did not have any of this evidence the last time we tried.
The gent did not look into our details on the system, but said they get lots of these complaints and phone calls with many with the same problems, and within good reason they can be looked at again, not always easy but worth trying.

Hubby said "this is a brand new complaint" explained the last one, and the guy said to him personally that should be okay, but see what they say on Monday, if we don't hear anything by the afternoon, he said to ring back up then.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

You really NEED this accepted as a NEW complaint Di.

Yes definately.

We did already explain this in email as well.;) (to the FOS).

urbangypsy

HI I had a ppi claim rejected by FOS saying that WFS were not regulated at the time the Loan/PPI was taken out which was Jan 2004. After months and months of research I came across a screen print from WFS database which clearly showed they were in fact regulated by GISC. I then resubmitted my claim with this evidence and have just been paid out almost £2000.
Incidently even after all this, the FOS told a colleague of mine only last week that WFS were not regulated in Jan 2004 so they are clearly STILL giving out wrong information.
Hope this helps some of you
Best of luck