Lender shirking responsibility?

Henneth

Hi all,

I have requested a refund of PPI charges from a secured loan with First National, who are now known as GE Money. The loan has since been repaid in full, if it makes a difference. We were 'introduced' to them through Freedom Finance, who I believe are now known as Wilmslow Finance. Once introduced, they left us to it and all of our dealings and correspondence were with GE from that point onwards. All of the paperwork is First National headed etc.

The response that I have received is that because I went through Freedom Finance, my beef is with them and GE are entirely washing their hands of this matter. Now I can understand that technically, I did go through FF, but only as an introduction - they didn't involve themselves in the loan application. Who should I be persuing? In my eyes, GE were the ones who said that I couldn't have the loan without PPI, not FF, so it's seems wrong to hold FF accountable for just acting as a match-maker.

I don't know if it's just GE playing mind games or if they're just telling the truth? Any help would be much appreciated!

TIA.

roonaldo

What GE Money are telling you is correct.

You are saying that GE mis-sold the PPI to you, but you have already stated you went through Freedom Finance, so GE did not sell you anything, as the Freedom Finance did teh sale. GE provided the lending, not the advice.

The company that sold you the PPI is responsible for the sale, they are the ones that provided you with the advice and documentation about the PPI. In this case it is the broker, Freedom Finance.

You cannot say that GE is responsible, as you were sat in front of/ spoke to a Freedom Finance staff member who was mis-selling the PPI to you.

You need to persue your complaint through Freedom Finance.

twins1302

Hi we are in the process of doing the same. went to a company who have taken it to FSO. FSO cannot make decision although it was misold as its out of their jurisdiction. Company are now trying to get the money from freedom finance but I'm not hopeful. Will keep you infomred

marshallka

Freedom Finance (or a FORMER Freedom Finance although they have two on companies house) are in administration.


WILMSLOW FINANCIAL SERVICES PLC
FREEDOM HOUSE
CHURCH STREET
WILMSLOW
CHESHIRE
SK9 1AX
Company No. 01780977

Status: In Administration
Date of Incorporation: 28/12/1983

Previous Names:
Date of change
Previous Name
23/02/2001WILMSLOW FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
28/01/2010FREEDOM FINANCE PLC
29/11/2002FREEDOM FINANCE LIMITED


Wilmslow Financial Services Ltd

24th May 2011
The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) is aware that Wilmslow Financial Services Ltd has been put into administration. The FSCS is investigating how it is able to help consumers that have lost money through dealing with the firm.
The company was an insurance broker whose main focus was providing Payment Protection Insurance (PPI). Customers of the firm do not need to contact the FSCS.
We will publish an update on Wilmslow Financial Services as soon as more information is available.
The FSCS protection for insurance broking is 90% of any eligible claim with no upper limit.

You will need to check which Freedom Company you used though?

magpiecottage

marshallka wrote: »

The FSCS protection for insurance broking is 90% of any eligible claim with no upper limit.

But protection only applies to events occurring on or after 14 January 2005.

FOS jurisdiction can go back further by virtue of certain former arbitration schemes.

If FOS has said it was not in its jurisdiction I am afraid the chance of a claim to FSCS seems small.

marshallka

magpiecottage wrote: »

But protection only applies to events occurring on or after 14 January 2005.

FOS jurisdiction can go back further by virtue of certain former arbitration schemes.

If FOS has said it was not in its jurisdiction I am afraid the chance of a claim to FSCS seems small.

Which is true but I wondered if FOS had said this because the OP was actually trying to make GE responsible for the sale????

I was just giving a heads up to consumers here as no dates were mentioned in either of the two posts?

magpiecottage

marshallka wrote: »

Which is true but I wondered if FOS had said this because the OP was actually trying to make GE responsible for the sale????

I was just giving a heads up to consumers here as no dates were mentioned in either of the two posts?

I think FOS would normally say GE had no case to answer rather than out of jurisdiction but there could be confusion by the OP (who can be excused their confusion) or FOS (who have no excuse but are still capable of such a misunderstanding)

magpiecottage

marshallka wrote: »

Which is true but I wondered if FOS had said this because the OP was actually trying to make GE responsible for the sale????

I was just giving a heads up to consumers here as no dates were mentioned in either of the two posts?

I think FOS would normally say GE had no case to answer rather than out of jurisdiction but there could be confusion by the OP (who can be excused their confusion) or FOS (who have no excuse but are still capable of such a misunderstanding)

marshallka

magpiecottage wrote: »

I think FOS would normally say GE had no case to answer rather than out of jurisdiction but there could be confusion by the OP (who can be excused their confusion) or FOS (who have no excuse but are still capable of such a misunderstanding)

FOS make mistakes all the time. They used to turn away Firstplus complaints prior to 14th jan 2005 saying that is when they had jurisdiction (although they were GISC members since Nov 2001) and the poor sods with Norton Finance complaints even when sold AFTER 14th Jan 2005 were turned away too as they said they did not have jurisdiction.

It was only those that came on here (quite a few that I remember) that resubmitted their complaints to Norton Insurance Services (their principals) and FOS then took the complaint again. Some had queued for months on end to be told nothing can they do... when the sale was made after 14th Jan (FOS did not get alarm bells by checking dates)so it was definately within their jurisdiction.

Not got a lot of faith in FOS myself.