Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour.

di3004

I am mistaken:o, the funds were in the account on the 03 August, so 4 days on after signing the agreement then.

But as it was my birthday I remember well the agreement was posted to us and they rang to ask us to sign and send back as soon as possible.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Just copying what it says

Credit Agreement
regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974

So yes it was regulated. Loan amount £21K, PPI £2385.

Yep, definately regulated so pre contract information should have been given.

(I had worked commission out on 24K and it was only 21k so commission was 8% on Loan)

Just read magpiecottages post but was this your Click?

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

I am mistaken:o, the funds were in the account on the 03 August, so 4 days on after signing the agreement then.

But as it was my birthday I remember well the agreement was posted to us and they rang to ask us to sign and send back as soon as possible.

There is still the fact that CLick did not sell the insurance regardless and it was actually HFC. ALso the pre disclosure information? Have a look through the SAR and see if they have any information that states they sent you pre documents to look over? I know we had none with FIrstplus and also if Life insurance is included in the agreement (as it often is in the PPI) does that mean that the 30 days cancellation applies and not just the 7 days from when you actually sign. I always wondered this one TBH?

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Yep, definately regulated so pre contract information should have been given.

(I had worked commission out on 24K and it was only 21k so commission was 8% on Loan)

Just read magpiecottages post but was this your Click?

Thanks Marshallka for checking this I do appreciate it big time.:A
With the Click we taken out the loan with they dissolved in 2006, yet to open new and carry on with other Click companies, I am not sure about GISC though, with only an application form and scrappy pieces of paperwork which also states Click loans as well as Click Financial its so confusing.
Yet when writing to the Click business that was still running, he wrote back and said they have nothing to do with the company that dissolved, so annoying.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

There is still the fact that CLick did not sell the insurance regardless and it was actually HFC. ALso the pre disclosure information? Have a look through the SAR and see if they have any information that states they sent you pre documents to look over? I know we had none with FIrstplus and also if Life insurance is included in the agreement (as it often is in the PPI) does that mean that the 30 days cancellation applies and not just the 7 days from when you actually sign. I always wondered this one TBH?

In regards of when they paid in the loan into my account, the first repayment came out on the 31st August 2004, as they previously stated the 30th of the following month, it must have fell on the weekend which is why it came out on that date. So they have gone by the agreement of the 30th July.

I am positive it was HFC, and again not lots of paperwork from them or Endeavour as such, but that info as stated above, when they rang to go through the application, and security questions etc.

I will take another gander through it though in case anything is amiss.

Most of the paperwork is just plain paperwork with calculations of the loan, its not confirming who done this.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Thanks Marshallka for checking this I do appreciate it big time.:A
With the Click we taken out the loan with they dissolved in 2006, yet to open new and carry on with other Click companies, I am not sure about GISC though, with only an application form and scrappy pieces of paperwork which also states Click loans as well as Click Financial its so confusing.
Yet when writing to the Click business that was still running, he wrote back and said they have nothing to do with the company that dissolved, so annoying.

I remember it well Di. The same directors given a licence by the OFT as fit and proper and yet they run business's into the ground, fail to look after consumers, leave debts etc and are being allowed to open again in the background just before they close their old business.

Its so wrong and something needs doing. I just hope that FOS have information on all of this (although I have no trust in FOS or the FSA TBH) and do something although I have an idea they already do know and also this is why they are using the "PROVE IT" now because they refuse to do something. They KNOW what goes on but we are only little people to them. I cannot understand your adjudicator saying to you to prove that Click did not sell the policy. This is how it goes, these brokers have all made what they can (MILLIONS often tax and Vat free) and they will admit to selling anything knowing that they did not and then they liquidate knowing that consumers have no way of fighting them. I wonder why they do this? What is in it for them one would think??????? I have a feeling I know but again proving it is difficult.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Thanks Marshallka for checking this I do appreciate it big time.:A
With the Click we taken out the loan with they dissolved in 2006, yet to open new and carry on with other Click companies, I am not sure about GISC though, with only an application form and scrappy pieces of paperwork which also states Click loans as well as Click Financial its so confusing.
Yet when writing to the Click business that was still running, he wrote back and said they have nothing to do with the company that dissolved, so annoying.

I remember it well Di. The same directors given a licence by the OFT as fit and proper and yet they run business's into the ground, fail to look after consumers, leave debts etc and are being allowed to open again in the background just before they close their old business.

Its so wrong and something needs doing. I just hope that FOS have information on all of this (although I have no trust in FOS or the FSA TBH) and do something although I have an idea they already do know and also this is why they are using the "PROVE IT" now because they refuse to do something. They KNOW what goes on but we are only little people to them. I cannot understand your adjudicator saying to you to prove that Click did not sell the policy. This is how it goes, these brokers have all made what they can (MILLIONS often tax and Vat free) and they will admit to selling anything knowing that they did not. I wonder why they do this? What is in it for them one would think??????? I have a feeling I know but again proving it is difficult.

The OFT have a lot to answer for also. I wonder why when you put Endeavour into THEIR search of CC licences (in the box of trading names) it then gives you the choice of CLICK AND ENDEAVOUR..... NO RELATIONSHIP EY????

Just been back on it and it is because Endeavour (just endeavour though and not endeavour finance or anything) is a trading name (current) of Click Financial LImited!!

Who allows this?

magpiecottage

di3004 wrote: »

if you check my post above the fos were unable to establish the relationship.

Yes - but the line I have suggested does not require a relationship between Hamilton and Click. Of course Hamilton might then argue that HFC sold it - which means Game On again for that complaint.

I do not think the argument that HFC is liable under the Consumer Credit Act is likely to work. It is possible that HFC allowed FOS jurisdiction over these matters at the time of the loan (though it was not then compulsory). Even if it did, unless and until it can be demonstrated that Click has a liability, it cannot have a joint and several one. If FOS had found against Click and it had then not paid (because it has gone bust) you might have a case but FOS has no jurisdiction over Click anyway.

marshallka

magpiecottage wrote: »

Yes - but the line I have suggested does not require a relationship between Hamilton and Click. Of course Hamilton might then argue that HFC sold it - which means Game On again for that complaint.

I do not think the argument that HFC is liable under the Consumer Credit Act is likely to work. It is possible that HFC allowed FOS jurisdiction over these matters at the time of the loan (though it was not then compulsory). Even if it did, unless and until it can be demonstrated that Click has a liability, it cannot have a joint and several one. If FOS had found against Click and it had then not paid (because it has gone bust) you might have a case but FOS has no jurisdiction over Click anyway.

Click will say they sold it and they have said they sold it BUT they are now closed down. This is what happens as i would imagine you know already magpiecottage. We went down every avenue possible with this complaint but brokers just admit to selling something they did not just so that consumers have no comeback. Click did not sell it as DI has said but HFC closed the sale. Its difficult to prove though but with more digging into these firms then perhaps something can be done. FOS have had everything from Di already and they have come back with "prove that Click did not sell it"..... yeah, right.

Its not making HFC liable under the CCA either, its making them responsible under the FSA rules for insurance. According to Di, they SOLD the insurance regardless of who sold the loan.

di3004

My only proof is that of an application form via Click Finance with details of the loan itself with no ppi included, not enough info though really.

Although I did send this to the Adjudicator the other day when he asked us to provide evidence that Click did not tell the insurance side of it, however they said Concrete evidence, don't think that will be enough though.

He did confirm after I emailed it through that he will look into it and come back with full details later on.