Anglian Windows mis-sold PPI

youngwilly

I too purchased double glazing from Anglian windows in 2000 for £4900 plus £657 of PPI as a condition of the 'gold discount' and of course interest was added to that every month at an APR of 24.3%

I have complained to Anglian about this mis-selling and their response is the same as others have received on this thread - Anglian were not a member of the FSA until 2005, it was 'My decision' to choose the PPI, and Anglian not a member of the ABI, GISC or FLA so not bound by the codes of practice.

When I took out the loan I was actually convalescing after having a quadruple heart bypass 3 months earlier and had not yet returned to work, and I was still receiving full pay whilst on sick leave.

I did not need the loan as I had no mortgage at the time but the sales rep told me I had to have the loan as well as the PPI in order to get the discount.

Anglian clearly have no problem with their sales reps mis-selling loans and insurance policies that wouldn't ever pay out, and aren't needed, to vulnerable customers, and then hiding behind the fact that they can't be touched for doing it. It seems misleading your customers can be very lucrative the PPI will have cost me nearly £2000 by the end of the loan period.

It seems unlikely that I will get any money back from Anglian or from GE Capital who were the loan company involved and who say they didn't sell the loan so it's not their problem. Hopefully one day these corrupt and despicable thieves will be brought to justice.

Meanwhile I make sure everyone I know hears about how these rogue trading companies operate and tell them to steer well clear. I suggest you do the same.

snookermag

Hi, I was interested in this thread, because I had PPI sold by Anglian in 2002 and 2003, with the loans from GE Money and the PPI from Cardif Pinnacle. In the last few months I have had Final Responses from Anglian indicating that they were not registered to the GISC scheme until 2005, so therefore they are not legally responsible, and from GE Money saying that they were not present at point of sale, so they are not responsible either. I had taken early retirement from teaching in 1994, so my only official income was my retirement pension, which would be paid irrespective of my health status. Therefore PPI was unnecessary, as I could not claim if I was ill. I applied for a benefit from Cardif Pinnacle when I was in hospital in 2003, but was told that I was ineligible for a payment. However, they continued to take my PPI payments and sent me leaflets regarding my PPI at intervals.
I recently contacted Cardif Pinnacle about my missold PPI (about 3 months ago) and filled in a claim questionnaire in mid May. They said they had up to 8 weeks to respond. However, that time has now passed, but in the meantime I have had two letters from them stating that they are still looking into my case. In my eyes this is promising, as they have not refused my claim outright. However, they are very slow in giving me either a refund or a final response. This situation must have happened to thousands of other Anglian customers, so presumably thay usually have a standard response in these cases!
I have today sent them an email for another 'progress report' and will pass on to the FOS if I do not get satisfaction soon. I feel that I have a cast-iron case, especially as they would not pay out on my illness!

GilesO

We too havehad a stonewall from Anglian over £1500 PPI taken out in 2004.

“In the last few months I have hadFinal Responses from Anglianindicating that they were not registered to the GISC scheme until 2005, so thereforethey are not legally responsible, and from GE Money saying that they were notpresent at point of sale, so they are not responsible either”

Yes, had this

“In that case, for complaints aboutsales from 2001 to 2005 (when Anglianbecame subject to FSA regulation) you CAN complain to Cardif Pinnacle that itbreached the code by accepting business from an intermediary that did notsubscribe to it”

Tried this – letter from Cardif Pinnacle (‘finalposition’) states that “Under the current regulatory regime any individual ororganisation that sells an insurance product is directly answerable forallegations of mis-sale. Accordingly please be advised I have referred yourletter to GE Money”

Looks likea Mexican standoff between Anglian, GE Money and Cardif Pinnacle.

Anyone gotany more ideas?

roonaldo

GilesO wrote: »

Anyone gotany more ideas?

There's actually nothing more you can do. Anglian ARE legally responsible for the sale, the fact they didnt subscribe to GISC just means they are not under FOS jurisdiction so they will just simply dismiss your complaint. They have just referred it to GE, who will just refer it to Anglian.

GE and Cardif Pinnacle are not responsible for the sale of it, as GE is just the lender of your loan and Cardif Pinnacle are the insurer, neither are the seller.

There are numerous other posts like this and from what I gather no one has managed to get a refund under these circumstances.

magpiecottage

roonaldo wrote: »

There's actually nothing more you can do. Anglian ARE legally responsible for the sale, the fact they didnt subscribe to GISC just means they are not under FOS jurisdiction so they will just simply dismiss your complaint. They have just referred it to GE, who will just refer it to Anglian.

GE and Cardif Pinnacle are not responsible for the sale of it, as GE is just the lender of your loan and Cardif Pinnacle are the insurer, neither are the seller.

That is not correct. Cardif Pinnacle subscribed to the GISC code and part of the requirement was that subscribing insurers must not accept business from non-GISC intermediaries. So now GilesO can now make a complaint to FOS against Cardif Pinnacle.

The complaint is NOT that the PPI was missold but that Cardif Pinnacle breached the GISC code by accepting a PPI application from Anglian Windows who did not subscribe. Cardif Pinnacle is therefore responsible for the consequences of the breach - i.e. being sold a product that was unsuitable for him.

It should therefore redress GilesO as if Anglian Windows had been acting as its representative at the time because that is the only way, under the GISC code, that it could have accepted business from a firm that did not subscribe to the code in its own right.

I will be interested to see how this comes out because it is the first time I have seen a case get this far.

roonaldo

magpiecottage wrote: »

That is not correct. Cardif Pinnacle subscribed to the GISC code and part of the requirement was that subscribing insurers must not accept business from non-GISC intermediaries. So now GilesO can now make a complaint to FOS against Cardif Pinnacle.

and nothing will come of it based on other cases i have seen. gileso has said that the insurer has referred it back to GE, who will refer it to seller and it will go round and round. and on top of this it may not have been mis-sold anyway.

grastaff

I am interested in this as I have just discovered that I had PPI cover that I did not know about on a loan financed by GE money through sales of door from Safetstyle UK. I wonder if the same stories have been seen for this company also or if anyone has had sucess with Safetstyle.

magpiecottage

roonaldo wrote: »

and nothing will come of it based on other cases i have seen. gileso has said that the insurer has referred it back to GE, who will refer it to seller and it will go round and round. and on top of this it may not have been mis-sold anyway.

But if gilesO makes a complaint to FOS that the insurer subscribed to the GISC code and breached it then FOS is required, under the transitional rules, to consider it.

GilesO

Time for a quick update...

Spoken to FOS this morning - who I found to be very helpful and knowledgeable. The basics are:

1. Pinnacle were perfectly allowed to receive business from brokers not registered with GISC (e.g. Anglian) before the regulation change date. There are therefore no grounds for complaint under this aspect.

2. However, the FOS is investigating whether or not the insurance companies bear responsibility for the original PPI mis-sales. They think this investigation could take up to 18 months, but my name has been added to their list.

Apparently I'm towards the head of their queue because I'm one of the few to have already had a definitive statement from an insurer.

In the meantime, FOS are writing again to Cardif Pinnacle asking them to reconsider their original decision in my case.

I'll keep you posted...

dunstonh

2. However, the FOS is investigating whether or not the insurance companies bear responsibility for the original PPI mis-sales. They think this investigation could take up to 18 months, but my name has been added to their list.

This is the angle that keeps being mentioned by the FOS but it is a strange one and not one that seems logical or fits with past reviews. It has also been mentioned by them for a couple of years now and we are no closer.

You can never say never but if the FOS try and impose it that there would be legal action against it.