Welcome won't investigate.

src007

Just to clear up all the confusion on here!

Everything Dunstohn said on here is correct. There isn't any way that Welcome Finance can be held responsible for the sale because they didn't become a member of GISC until 2003.

Whilst Welcome are no longer trading, when winding down the company they set aside a 'pot' of money to refund PPI policies sold between 2003 and 2005, whilst they were a member of GISC.

For any policies sold after 2005 the FSCS can help as well.

However the FOS may still be able to take on this complaint. What the FOS will be looking at, is whether the insurance underwriter can be held responsible for the sale (Welcome were the broker and the company that actually provided the insurance itself is called the underwriter).

Mis-selling complaints against underwriters at FOS is a very uncertain area. The FOS are trying to determine whether they are legally allowed to look at such complaints.

For this reason, if you send the complaint to FOS be ready for a very, very long wait. None of the underwriter complaints will be resolved until the legal issues are finalised (which could take years because FOS have been looking into this situation for years already).

I hope this makes sense to you castaway?

JuicyJesus

castaway1116 wrote: »

Juicy and Magpie,Thanks for your support.

I think you may have misinterpreted my sarcasm, there.

tifo

dunstonh wrote: »

It is the date you signed the application that matters. Not the duration of the debt.

it's the date of the charge that matters.

the limitation act starts from the 'cause of action'.

dunstonh

tifo wrote: »

it's the date of the charge that matters.

the limitation act starts from the 'cause of action'.

I believe with the FSCS, it is the date on the application that matters. It certainly has been on the investment class business and was recognised as such with endowment applications which were signed before August 1988 but did not start until after. The FSCS went by the signing date (just as the FOS did with with their earlier April 1988 date)

The position in law and the position with FOS and FSCS are not always in line with each other.

magpiecottage

src007 wrote: »

Mis-selling complaints against underwriters at FOS is a very uncertain area. The FOS are trying to determine whether they are legally allowed to look at such complaints.

If the sale was not made by the insurer or its representative I do not see that it can do. Donoghue v Stephenson could conceivably give a case if it was a single premium but I think it would still be difficult and likely to face a judicial review.

src007

magpiecottage wrote: »

If the sale was not made by the insurer or its representative I do not see that it can do.

When wording a letter against the underwriter, the FOS say you should put down that the broker was acting as an agent of the underwriter.

It looks like they have to work out the relationship between the underwriter and the broker in each case, to see if they can be held responsible.

The FOS must have 10,000s underwriter complaints sat in their building because they look for this link whenever a broker is unregulated.

The FOS say that they're running test cases in this area and I've seen one underwriter suggest they were thinking of calling for a Judical Review depending on the outcome of the test cases.

tifo

dunstonh wrote: »

The position in law and the position with FOS and FSCS are not always in line with each other.

The position in law has to be recognised by everyone, especially when they quote the Limitation Act. The law applies equally to all.

dunstonh

tifo wrote: »

The position in law has to be recognised by everyone, especially when they quote the Limitation Act. The law applies equally to all.

No it doesn't. Please explain how the 15 year long stop in civil law doesnt apply to the FOS?

There is no 15-year "long-stop" rule in the FSA's complaints-handling rules made under the Financial Services and Markets Act.

The civil laws do not apply to everyone equally.

tifo

dunstonh wrote: »

No it doesn't. Please explain how the 15 year long stop in civil law doesnt apply to the FOS?

There is no 15-year "long-stop" rule in the FSA's complaints-handling rules made under the Financial Services and Markets Act.

The civil laws do not apply to everyone equally.

The FOS has to take account of all primary, secondary and common law legislation in its decisions but can depart from the law if it finds it 'reasonable'. If the consumer can show that any depart from the law was not within the FOS's 'fair and reasonable' mandate they can take their own action action.

castaway1116

Thank you all for your input.I'm sending back the questionnaire to the FOS today,I'll just have to wait and see how they decide to view it.The argument over who is responsible...the broker or the finance company puts me in mind of a lively debate in the USA.Who is responsible for the shooting?..The shooter,the vendor, or the gun manufacturer?.Not a precise comparison, but their is a debate in there somewhere.It depends how the courts see it,didn't they do a "wonderful" job with the bank charges!?.