Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour.

di3004

ianhillwoodville wrote: »

A fascinating thread. Nothing I can add except a good luck. I am watching all I can about underwriters/intermediaries and so on as I have just moved my complaint from GE to Pinnacle as underwriters. Not sure I understand all the nuances of the relationships covered here but do wish you well.

Thank you, its been long and winded and determined to stick it out, but not getting anywhere just yet lol, cheers though and the best of luck on yours.;)

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Just reply to the adjudicator that Click did not sell the policy and you do have proof as the application was without PPI so how can HFC that they were passed details from Click. In fact I would send HFC a copy of your application to see that you did not want PPI from CLick. See what they say then. They have offered for you to supply more info and its not a final response as such.

Yes I will do that, thanks Marshallka.
Something is definately amiss here.

Funny thing is on the other letter we received from HFC/Endeavour last week (where they did not mention HFC involvement) they did enclose a copy of the application form via Click, without the PPI, over 240 months and the letter that arrived today they enclose a copy of the agreement signed 30 July 2004, with ppi over 300 months, don't think they noticed to be honest lol.

di3004

Gonna get that letter scanned up as well and email it to the adjudicator, no doubt he will tell me he has the same one lol.

Thanks for the info and advice Marshallka, you have been my rock through this and it have really opened my eyes big time, and of course you went through the same thing, something should be done, its just not on that they are allowed to get away with this. x

di3004

Just a thought Marshallka,

Did you ever have this one resolved via First Plus after? I can't remember.
But if not maybe in light of this and if anything came of mine, a BIG if lol, maybe its something you could revisit on yours as well.

I bet this have happened to many of hundreds of customers!!

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Just a thought Marshallka,

Did you ever have this one resolved via First Plus after? I can't remember.
But if not maybe in light of this and if anything came of mine, a BIG if lol, maybe its something you could revisit on yours as well.

I bet this have happened to many of hundreds of customers!!

I never had Firstplus for anything TBH Di. Would love to have got them for my sale and adding another "40 months repayments" to my loan too of which rule 78 was used BUT as "you know" what happened on this one the answer is no, I cannot take Firstplus on anything. Believe me I have tried and recently asked why they had our place of employment address something different to what it was (just wanted them to know I have not forgotton them) but they just say it was a mistake and they will get it altered. I just wondered if they had altered records in order for us to get the loan in the first place when they added their PPI and our wages were not enough. They say not.... may get a SAR from the insurer though yet!!! Have not decided.

I took the insurer for the unfair rebate and that was not a hard complaint as it was UTCCR and as you know the broker "admitted" to misselling and was in GIB (Bespoke!!) BUT they were not within jurisdiction for the sale and FOS would not look into it against Firstplus because they said they did not sell it. Bespoke have now gone into administration too!!!

I KNOW that the same thing happened with yours too and this is the problem and it makes me wonder what is going on in the background for these brokers that "admit" to sales they often did not make and then they go bump!!! I just feel for you on this one, you cannot get the broker as they have gone into administration and dissolved. I just want you to win and get back your money somehow.

Keep on keeping on at them. You will get there in the end I would think and if not you really will have done all you can. I just cannot see that FOS can just listen to CLIck saying they sold it when evidence (like I HAD also IF our complaint was within FOS jurisdiction that is) is there to the contrary. IF our complaint was one that FOS could have looked into this is the way I would have gone and I would have argued black and blue that we applied for the loan without PPI and that there is actually more proof that someone else sold it (being either lender or insurer) than the broker. On balance of probability you did not buy/have sold insurance from the broker. The balance of probability says that the insurer or lender sold it to you.

di3004

I can imagine how you feel on this Marshallka!

But if and when you feel ready to have a go, and the more people in the same situation the better perhaps, as we said its just not fair they have been allowed to do this.

Like yours, you have been through the same thing and lots of others have too, they should not be allowed to get away with it.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

I can imagine how you feel on this Marshallka!

But if and when you feel ready to have a go, and the more people in the same situation the better perhaps, as we said its just not fair they have been allowed to do this.

Like yours, you have been through the same thing and lots of others have too, they should not be allowed to get away with it.

But would it be right, proper and fair in my case Di? That is the question I ask myself and like I say, you know the outcome on mine so would it be two wrongs don't make a right so to speak lol...... cannot say too much!!!!

di3004

We have been informed that the Adjudicator have already been in touch with HFC in regards of why there is no PPI on the Broker loan application and questioning on the lender loan agreement, so HFC have until 30th of this month to respond to that matter or he will do some chasing.

Dear

I apologise for the delay in responding to you. Once I have received a response from HFC, I will respond to you accordingly in full. I gave HFC till the 30 June to respond to the request I sent to them regarding your case, so I will chase them if nothing is received by close of business on that date.

Yours sincerely

M
Adjudicator | Financial Ombudsman Service
South Quay

marshallka

Good luck Di. You deserve it.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Good luck Di. You deserve it.

Thank you Marshallka, I shall keep you posted. Xx;)