We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Black Horse
Comments
-
dottieminstral wrote: »They said that we were told about the benefits of the policy and that we had 30 days to cancel it!
FOS would not normally accept that as a reason but if the sale was before 14 January 2005 it may or may not be able to intervene, depending on whether Black Horse subscribed to the GISC code at the time.They don't accept that we were TOLD that in order to be accepted we HAD to take out the insurance.
Although that complaint has been made by many borrowers, frequency of assertion does not make something true (the world did not become flat just because 500 years ago most people said it was).
So unless you have specific evidence it is not an assertion that can be proved.We were in a bad place financially and had the loan secured on the house because of our credit rating being so bad
If the loan was secured on your home, that protected Black Horse, not you. It meant that if, through illness or redundancy, you could not keep up repayments, they could have you evicted.
That is a very good reason to have PPI, to the extent that the Mortgage Code Compliance Board actually recommended that advisers get borrowers to sign a disclaimer if they refused cover.
For a lender, the negative publicity associated with having to force a customer out of their home to recover money that was rightfully the lender's would represent a significant commercial risk so they would in fact have good commercial reason to insist on cover.
If they genuinely did insist on cover then it would amount to an exercise of commercial judgement by the lender and this is specifically excluded from FOS jurisdiction.
Black Horse does not seem to have made this argument so it leaves you free to pursue a complaint but I think the only grounds on which it might succeed would be if it was a single premium policy and the premium was added to the loan.0 -
They rejected two of my complaints even though they were single premium. If I hadn't agreed to the rejection then I would have had to have taken all of them to the FOS/FLA as even though they were submitted as seperate complaints they grouped them together in the investigation.
Ian0 -
Yet another miscalc to my benefit, today's calculation from Black Horse shows that they owe me around £13000. More than double the original figures. Was also promised payment within 5 days :-)
Ian0 -
Excellent - progress! :beer:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards