Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour.

di3004

Marshallka

On another letter also dated 2008 from EPF......

As you purchased your policy prior to the introduction of the Insurance Code of Business Regulations on 14 January 2005, I regret that the Ombudsman will be unable to adjudicate in this matter. In addition, prior to the 6th April 2007 and the introduction of the Consumer Credit Jurisdiction legislation, Endeavour Personal Finance was not a member of the Ombudsman Scheme. As you complaint relates to an event, which took place prior to the 6th April 2007, the ombudsman would be unable to adjudicate on a complaint against EPF.

marshallka

There is something really dodgy with all these Sub Prime Lenders. I feel something is not right somewhere? I wonder if the FOS have a lot of cases like this one (and mine too that they kept for ages before saying "no can do") whereby they could get the authorities (and I don't mean the FSA here!!) involved in thoroughly investigating these firms. Why are these brokers of Sub Prime Lenders going bump so often just because of PPI being missold? What are trying to hide from? Just what WAS going on in the background.

If it ever comes about that any of these firms were acting fraudulently then surely all those that had loans from company that had committed fraud would never ever have gone near them in the first place. I would never have had any dealing with a firm that had acted out of sorts. Would anyone???

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

There is something really dodgy with all these Sub Prime Lenders. I feel something is not right somewhere? I wonder if the FOS have a lot of cases like this one (and mine too that they kept for ages before saying "no can do") whereby they could get the authorities (and I don't mean the FSA here!!) involved in thoroughly investigating these firms. Why are these brokers of Sub Prime Lenders going bump so often just because of PPI being missold? What are trying to hide from? Just what WAS going on in the background.

If it ever comes about that any of these firms were acting fraudulently then surely all those that had loans from company that had committed fraud would never ever have gone near them in the first place. I would never have had any dealing with a firm that had acted out of sorts. Would anyone???

I agree Marshallka

I am still trying to get my head round it all, and how the heck are we supposed to know who are who!!
Dunstonh have left a post as well if you've not come across it yet.

But as you said, something is amiss here somewhere, if the FOS have not actually dealt with cases like this one yet, I think its about to happen or it should at least be looked into.

Do you think we could get more info from the OFT or FSA on this one perhaps?

Well I emailed the adjudicator last Friday, and made sure that we still have the opportunity to have our case reviewed if we're not happy with the decision by HFC, short and sweet but just received his email below, hope the referral rights are going to be that of the ombudsman still.........:eek:

Dear Mr & Mrs

A letter will be sent to you early this week. The letter will detail you referral rights if you are not happy with the contents.

Yours sincerely

Ma
Adjudicator | Financial Ombudsman Service
South Quay Plaza | 183 Marsh Wall | London | E14 9SR T: 020E: ma

di3004

Did find something in the money media about Mortgage packagers/introducers...


http://www.mortgageintroducer.com/mortgages/13181/5/Industry_in_depth/Embracing_change.htm

15 July 2006



The role of packagers within the mortgage industry is oft debated, occasionally by those who have never really understood the concept, and our role going forward considered. It is certainly true that the market from which we emerged some 15 years ago was very different to the market as it is today.

The need to deliver shareholder returns has been a significant influence in shaping the mortgage market. The strong housing market, resulting in a 160 per cent plus increase in average house prices since 1997, and a competitive environment with over 150 lenders, have resulted in a high demand for mortgages, but also eroded margins on conventional mortgages. Lenders have consequently focused firmly on volumes.

Market shifts
This has generated opportunities for packagers who are able to identify shifts in market demand and help lenders structure new products and strategies. Lenders have focused on the mainstream, but have been happy to underwrite the debt when presented with the product, and defined usage. Packagers have, in effect, acted like an outsourced product development and distribution team, spotting opportunities and taking them to lenders with advanced rationale.

A major, and continuing, unique service proposition for lenders is the packagers’ ability to filter a case from basic information, enabling the right lender to be chosen first time. This has, and continues to result in much higher application to offer to completion benefits for lenders. Packager submissions result in more than 85 per cent application-to-offer ratios while direct submissions to lenders often result in less than 50 per cent hit rates.

However, the market is changing; with decreasing housing affordability and fewer potential buyers, a softening labour market, heightened yet stagnating property prices, and a high price-to-disposable income ratio. Margins, not volume, is now the watchword, as lenders look to preserve profits. The light end of the non-conforming market, traditionally the preserve of packagers, is a territory now inhabited by mainstream lenders.

Packager role
With margin hungry lenders already encroaching on the packagers’ territory, using advances in front-end processing technology to directly market (even specialised products) to brokers, what is the role for packagers?
The packagers’ opportunity is created by these changing environmental and market conditions. Packagers, with their immediate proximity to the market, have a proven capability to identify and service changing needs. Furthermore, their size and focus enables them to deliver an enhanced service to brokers, including:
- same day response for web applications received by 3pm. - 48-hour response for other applications.

More to follow on the link above.

di3004

My adjudicator never seems to give enough away does he?

Probably naffed him off with all the emails, but sometimes that's the only way we get to know what is going on!
I do think if he had something better to tell us then he would have done.

I hope Endeavour/HFC have provided him with written evidence and not verball, afterall they must take a look at both sides, I had the paperwork, and going by what he said that "HFC contacted him" to me that sounds like a phone call!

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

I agree Marshallka

I am still trying to get my head round it all, and how the heck are we supposed to know who are who!!
Dunstonh have left a post as well if you've not come across it yet.

But as you said, something is amiss here somewhere, if the FOS have not actually dealt with cases like this one yet, I think its about to happen or it should at least be looked into.

Do you think we could get more info from the OFT or FSA on this one perhaps?

Well I emailed the adjudicator last Friday, and made sure that we still have the opportunity to have our case reviewed if we're not happy with the decision by HFC, short and sweet but just received his email below, hope the referral rights are going to be that of the ombudsman still.........:eek:

Dear Mr & Mrs

A letter will be sent to you early this week. The letter will detail you referral rights if you are not happy with the contents.

Yours sincerely

Ma
Adjudicator | Financial Ombudsman Service
South Quay Plaza | 183 Marsh Wall | London | E14 9SR T: 020E: ma

I don't know what to make of that one Di? It is not sounding good is it TBH with saying about referral rights BUT you can still have the Ombudsman look into this if all else does fail.

These adjudicators don't know everything and they should do. That is why we refer cases to FOS because of getting a fair hearing (both sides) but if they don't know about the laws etc then how is that actually fair?? These firms have big lawyers working for them. The general public has to rely on a text book under qualified adjudicator and do all the ground work for them.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

I don't know what to make of that one Di? It is not sounding good is it TBH with saying about referral rights BUT you can still have the Ombudsman look into this if all else does fail.

These adjudicators don't know everything and they should do. That is why we refer cases to FOS because of getting a fair hearing (both sides) but if they don't know about the laws etc then how is that actually fair?? These firms have big lawyers working for them. The general public has to rely on a text book under qualified adjudicator and do all the ground work for them.

I think the same as well Marshallka, and think if it was anything more positive he would have said at least something.
I know I did question him on the referral in order to get that reply to make sure it still stands.
It will be off to the ombudsman then.

And that's right I don't think they know everything either, which is why it needs pointing out, I may email the OFT what do you think?

(my typing writing looks different to the top writing).......:think: think I must have clicked something on the keyboard lol.

Anyway I have emailed him again this morning just to ask if he can send the letter by email as he did last time on request, because post around here is a right pain.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

I think the same as well Marshallka, and think if it was anything more positive he would have said at least something.
I know I did question him on the referral in order to get that reply to make sure it still stands.
It will be off to the ombudsman then.

And that's right I don't think they know everything either, which is why it needs pointing out, I may email the OFT what do you think?

(my typing writing looks different to the top writing).......:think: think I must have clicked something on the keyboard lol.

Anyway I have emailed him again this morning just to ask if he can send the letter by email as he did last time on request, because post around here is a right pain.

Di, who does TBD think is responsible ultimately for the sale by what they were saying OTR at LB? SOMEONE has got to take responsibility for it and FOS should actually make someone responsible. All this crap about "cannot make them accept liability" is getting on my nerves. The FOS have details that we do not have surely and can request things that we cannot request. They need to start looking out for consumers instead of listening to dodgy brokers/lenders all the time. In fact it makes me wonder just why they do this? I wish someone could investigate FOS!!!! I don't trust FOS at all.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Di, who does TBD think is responsible ultimately for the sale by what they were saying OTR at LB? SOMEONE has got to take responsibility for it and FOS should actually make someone responsible. All this crap about "cannot make them accept liability" is getting on my nerves. The FOS have details that we do not have surely and can request things that we cannot request. They need to start looking out for consumers instead of listening to dodgy brokers/lenders all the time. In fact it makes me wonder just why they do this? I wish someone could investigate FOS!!!! I don't trust FOS at all.

I understand TBD is saying its Endeavours liability as such, which will lead to the connection of Hamilton where the adjudicator could not establish the relationship to Click to Hamilton (that does sort of make sense as well I think).
When I contacted Hamilton (Direct group now) they said they had no details on Click Finance and that we would have to be put in touch with the lender on this matter.
But it will still all come down to the underwriter either way.

It all seems to be falling into place now.
And I am losing trust with the FOS now as well, and no matter what I tell them I feel its one that they will not want to deal with.

di3004

Marshallka

Email received from the adjudicator today. I chased him up and said no letter received up to now, and because I had a bad feeling on this I told him there is more evidence to add but in relation to Click etc, but he was going to go along with HFC anyway, and said he would not have been able to adjudicate it as they were not regulated blah blah.

But he have given now until the 19th of July if we want more time to research etc, take a look over at LB when you have a chance, its posted up on there.
We had a feeling on this didn't we?

I don't think he's going to understand the issues on the new matter either, he will see it a broker is a broker lol, but the main thing is the connection to Hamilton, but it baffles me that he would not already know this anyway with already being in touch with Endeavour.
Bet there was no paperwork from them though, just verbal contacts!