GE Home Finance - MPPI Court ot Not?

ianhillwoodville

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the feedback.

OK it was a secured loan (second charge) but Magpiecottage is right about the position of the borrower.

Anyway on the basis that the lender does not in any way make some offer I have a little thought.

As I understand it the lender is now regulated by the FSA and must now comply with their principles namely that of fairness. In so doing they need - it seems to me - to do two things:

1) Treat my complaint fairly and openly
2) Apply the principles of fairness to that complaint.

Now I recognise that the FSA Handbook currently sets out the key facts to consider in PPI cases but it also (together with the recently publshed revisions) sets out some more general terms for dealing with complaints and I have learnt from here this is a complaint and not a claim.

So on the first point my view is that if they send the template style letter with a go to the FLA clause, then they have in fact failed to deal with my complaint in line with the principles and that is grounds for a separate complaint. OK that doesn't get me very far in some ways but it does potentially get me into the FOS system on which hangs (I hope and feel) point 2.

In assessing my complaint fairly I would argue the lender needs to look at the issues in comparison to other cases - particularly any that arose after 31 October 2004 when the lender was registered and 15 January 2005 when regulation began. I would therefore argue that if they have settled any claim dating from around that time (my loan was completed 21 October 2004) they would need to demonstrate that the circumstances were significantly different in fact and not just a case of we upheld here because the Ombudsman can investigate. Failure to do so - especially in view of the new revisions to complaints handling published by the FSA and due for implementation from 31 July and 30 September - would potentially be grounds for complaint and (and OK this is my big leap of faith) the FOS might (I emphasise might) be able to insist that they do carry out an investigation on this basis and satisfy the FOS that they had applied a fair, open and honest investigation.

Could be a tad hard to prove but hey I think there might be something in it.

As always any thoughts including saying you are a fool most welcome. Even if it comes to naught gives me some warm feeling of potential revenge and maybe some cruumb of hope for the pre-2005 brigade!!!!

ianhillwoodville

OK and I know you must all hate amateur sleuths trying to find loopholes. I have been having a ferret around and

The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Transitional Provisions) (Complaints Relating to General Insurance and Mortgages) Order 2004

Talks about

Where the former scheme in question is the MCAS Scheme, a complainant is not to be treated as eligible for the purposes of paragraph (2)(d) if—
(a)the complaint does not relate to a breach of the Mortgage Code(2);
(b)the complaint concerns physical injury, illness, nervous shock or their consequences; or
(c)the complainant is claiming a sum of money that exceeds £100,000.

Now as far as I can see GE Home Finance were members of the CML and as such subject to their code and indeed the MCAS scheme. I would argue that the complaint relates to a breach of the Mortgage Code as it was added to the loan

Since my PPI was added to the loan then in fact it was one of the products or services offered and as CML states in the code they will follow the ABI General Code of Business Practice. This is cited by the FSA in Circular CP10/6.

Now unless (and I am sure they will) somebody tells me that GE were not CML members then then because this was added to the mortgage the sales standards failed to meet the ABI Code were thus subject to the MCAS scheme and consequently are eligible for investigation.

Ok probably more failed and twisted logic but a humble attempt to tread a path trodden by greater people than I in pursuit of a way forward.

marshallka

magpiecottage wrote: »

Although complaints are being accepted, it does not necessarily mean they are going to be upheld.

Adjudicators are paid a fee to "resolve" cases. Accepting the case then rejecting it means they get the fee but deciding at outset there is no case to answer means they don't.

The insurer gets stung for a fee of £500 when this happens, like it or not.

It seems to operate rather like a car clamping scam.

But someone is responsible and surely the insurer should make sure that their sellers of policies are fit and proper to do so. All insurance should be sold in good faith shouldn't it.

It seems then by what you are saying above that adjudicators will take on "any" complaint that is within dates regardless. This seems unfair in one way to lenders/insurers BUT often there is no other way for a consumer to get help.

If you feel that a firm has not given you a chance with a complaint and not answered it and "fully investigated" what you are complaining about can you then ask FOS to look at the complaint of "treating customers fairly" and the complaint date being the date they sent their "not fully invesitgated" final response.

FOS asks for the date of the incident and if you have no way of getting your original complaint forward BUT have evidence that something was missold, can your complaint date be the date that you received a final response? This would then be a complaint about "treating customers fairly" in that they cannot dismiss a complaint just because they KNOW that you could not take to FOS, which they often do.

How do you get FOS to look at a complaint whereby a firm says you used a broker (knowing that the broker would not be within FOS jurisdiction) BUT you beg to differ and you think the lender (who is within jurisdiction of FOS) sold it. How is that FOS then listens to the lender? What EVIDENCE do they check on? Often the firm just writes back to FOS and says "twas not us" and FOS accepts without actually fully investigating.

magpiecottage

marshallka wrote: »

But someone is responsible and surely the insurer should make sure that their sellers of policies are fit and proper to do so.

Insurers are responsible for their sellers - i.e. those who are their own appointed representatives, who act for the insurer.

However, an independent intermediary is just that, independent. They act for the customer, not the insurer. The customer pays for their services, either by means of a fee or by commission.

All insurance should be sold in good faith shouldn't it.

Indeed - but an insurer is entitled to take business in good faith from an intermediary who is acting for the purchaser on the basis that the intermediary has addressed the issue of suitability.

It seems then by what you are saying above that adjudicators will take on "any" complaint that is within dates regardless. This seems unfair in one way to lenders/insurers BUT often there is no other way for a consumer to get help.

But is it right to simply dump the unfair treatment on somebody else?

Often the firm just writes back to FOS and says "twas not us" and FOS accepts without actually fully investigating.

Generally, they lender will be able to state from its records who the intermediary was and, on the whole, will say so in their response to the complainant anyway.

magpiecottage

ianhillwoodville wrote: »

Now as far as I can see GE Home Finance were members of the CML and as such subject to their code and indeed the MCAS scheme. I would argue that the complaint relates to a breach of the Mortgage Code as it was added to the loan

For the reasons I have described above, GE Home finance would not be liable.

However you could not, in any case, rely on the Mortgage Code because it was defunct by the time you took out your loan. It falls into a gap of 2½ months when the Mortgage Code might cover MPPI that was not sold under the GISC code or FSA regulation.

In addition, second charges were, and, although there is a proposal to change this, remain regulated by the Consumer Credit Act and the Office of Fair Trading, not the FSA.

FOS only has jurisdiction over events relating to a second charge from 6 April 2007 unless the firm volunteers to submit to it - which it is a fair bet GE has not.

magpiecottage

roonaldo wrote: »

They dont do this on PPI complaints, most of the adjudicators are contractors but on a daily rate (I was there last year), FOS did get in a load of contractors from Hazel Carr who did banking complaints on a fee basis but that was scrapped last year.

I believe they still get incentive payments of one form or another, so picking up a case and closing it as out of jurisdiction will be a quick win for them.

There is a strict checking process on the PPI response letters, so letters dont go out with wrong decisions on.

Not the place for a debate about that perhaps but it does not change the fact that the firm is charged £500 for the privilege of being told they are correct.


(I'd be interested to know how many of the contractors actually hold relevant complaint handling and/or general insurance qualifications, though).

marshallka

magpiecottage wrote: »

Insurers are responsible for their sellers - i.e. those who are their own appointed representatives, who act for the insurer.

However, an independent intermediary is just that, independent. They act for the customer, not the insurer. The customer pays for their services, either by means of a fee or by commission.



Indeed - but an insurer is entitled to take business in good faith from an intermediary who is acting for the purchaser on the basis that the intermediary has addressed the issue of suitability.



But is it right to simply dump the unfair treatment on somebody else?




Generally, they lender will be able to state from its records who the intermediary was and, on the whole, will say so in their response to the complainant anyway.

I know that myself and others on here were told by Firstplus that a broker sold the PPI (an unregulated one) and WE all know that the point of sale was actually Firstplus as it was them that added the PPI and them we all spoke to upon receiving the agreement. (I myself received no pre agreement either and it was Firstplus who I rang and they told me the PPI was compulsory to our agreement and it was a savings scheme). Hence, point of sale regardless what they say. I had 14 days to cancel the agreement (which included the PPI typed into it but needed the loan and thought what they were saying was correct and we would get it back after 5 years). Firstplus sold the PPI in my eyes.

How come that FOS listens to the firm who are just "saying" we did not sell it when proof of it being added was after applying. They must look at application forms (like with mine the application is made without PPI even if a broker was used) BUT FIrstplus added the PPI. They are doing this to try to hinder complainant from ever having a chance of taking the matter to FOS. Why is this allowed?

Should we just listen to a firm that has already "Lied" through its backteeth. Also surely this is where an insurer complaint is needed. They must have benefited from the sale also. Commissions were paid I would assume. Its the Secured Loans sector that needs to be investigated thoroughly in my eyes. I do not know of any secured loan insurance that actually covers more than the first 5 years of any loan? So wrong and it seems they get away with this by saying unregulated brokers sold the products. You cannot tell me that insurers did not know of this?

And to quote again from my post above if you know the answer

If you feel that a firm has not given you a chance with a complaint and not answered it and "fully investigated" what you are complaining about can you then ask FOS to look at the complaint of "treating customers fairly" and the complaint date being the date they sent their "not fully invesitgated" final response.

FOS asks for the date of the incident and if you have no way of getting your original complaint forward BUT have evidence that something was missold, can your complaint date be the date that you received a final response? This would then be a complaint about "treating customers fairly" in that they cannot dismiss a complaint just because they KNOW that you could not take to FOS, which they often do.

magpiecottage

Marshallka

I understand what you are saying. The problem you have is evidence.

We could all claim documents were all claim anything was altered after the event and thus get redress to which we were not entitled otherwise.

It is also quite likely that anybody working for the lender at the time will either have moved on or not remember so whoever looks at the case now has to weigh up the testimony of the complainant against the written evidence. The written evidence is clearly contemporaneous. It may be wrong but, looking at it impartially, it is less likely to be.

Now it is no longer possible to sell PPI at point of sale of the loan, the chances of the sort of thing you allege occurring will be significantly reduced.

If the LENDER told you the insurance was compulsory when it was not after the loan had been applied for, though, then you DO have a complaint against the lender rather than the intermediary - but not the insurer as they are simply carrying out instructions.

marshallka

magpiecottage wrote: »

Marshallka

I understand what you are saying. The problem you have is evidence.

We could all claim documents were all claim anything was altered after the event and thus get redress to which we were not entitled otherwise.

It is also quite likely that anybody working for the lender at the time will either have moved on or not remember so whoever looks at the case now has to weigh up the testimony of the complainant against the written evidence. The written evidence is clearly contemporaneous. It may be wrong but, looking at it impartially, it is less likely to be.

Now it is no longer possible to sell PPI at point of sale of the loan, the chances of the sort of thing you allege occurring will be significantly reduced.

If the LENDER told you the insurance was compulsory when it was not after the loan had been applied for, though, then you DO have a complaint against the lender rather than the intermediary - but not the insurer as they are simply carrying out instructions.

Its alright saying that but then lenders state they did not sell it. (even though applications clearly state NO INSURANCE). They say it was sold by brokers still. FOS will not accept complaints against lenders when lenders say brokers sold it (even without thoroughly investigating) so IF a consumer feels different (as they have proof on applying of not wanting PPI) then surely the complaint can get within the FOS as not being treated fairly and the complaint date be that of the final response from the lender. Is this allowed? That is what I am asking? (IF the insurance was sold just before they became a member of GISC.... the lender that is?) Would FOS accept a complaint of not being treated fairly in the matter and not the sale of the PPI date?

This is similar to what the OP is stating?

You have to remember that with a large complaint uphold rate surely on balance of probability is they have lied and missold half the time and not the consumer making things up? Why does FOS take the view of the liar beyond the consumer? I thought they were impartial? Where is the evidence from the firm? Why are they listened to? You keep mentioning evidence? If a consumer has an application that states NO PPI (probably taken with a broker) and PPI is added by the lender and the lender dismiss's the complaint but the consumer remembers the phone call well whereby the lender say the PPI is compulsory why is it that the lenders word is gospel. Remember the application clearly states no ppi.

roonaldo

magpiecottage wrote: »

I believe they still get incentive payments of one form or another, so picking up a case and closing it as out of jurisdiction will be a quick win for them.

there were sometimes bonuses for over production, yes. The cases that were out of jurisdiction would not get to an adjudicator, they were just dealt with by a different team who would just send out a letter.

Not the place for a debate about that perhaps but it does not change the fact that the firm is charged £500 for the privilege of being told they are correct.

on this particular case in question, the firm would not get charged £500, FOS would not take on the complaint if its out of jurisdiction.

I'd be interested to know how many of the contractors actually hold relevant complaint handling and/or general insurance qualifications, though).

Most of the contractors were ex financial advisers, mortgage advisers and people who had worked in the industry for years, so would be CeMAP or FPC qualified. Most of the contractors like myself, would go round from firm to firm around the country on short term contracts doing complaint handling. There were a few graduates with no experience at all!! Then theres the actual FOS employed staff, I dont believe they touch the PPI complaints themselves.