bank won't accept PPI claim ... reclaim from underwriter?

tifo

Has anyone reclaimed PPI premiums from the underwriter instead of the bank?

I had a Goldfish credit card for which no bank will accept my claim. The current creditor (Barclaycard) says they have no information (they may be right) and the creditor with whom the card/policy was taken (HFC) says they sold it with full liabilities, i.e. they didn't keep anything.

In between there's been Morgan Stanley and Lloyds who again say they have no information (and they may be right).

I had an Abbey and A&L credit cards which were later sold to MBNA. However, they say that the PPI liability was not bought and stayed with each bank, who are now all Santander, who in turn say they have no information as all data was sent to MBNA.

This means I have 4 credit cards with PPI and cannot get a bank to accept my claim and look into it.

I don't want to go to the FOS due to the long wait. I'd rather take it to court if possible.

Any advice?

di3004

Hi there

Maybe in your case it will be a good idea to just ring the FOS as a general query, tell them you want to deal with this yourself but confused on who you should pursue.
They maybe able to confirm on the phone.

So whoever they say, I would contact the business and make them aware that you were advised to pursue them and it may also be a good idea then to request for a Subject Access Request (SAR) for all the data on the account.

What year did you take out the policy?

Alpine_Star

tifo wrote: »

I don't want to go to the FOS due to the long wait. I'd rather take it to court if possible.

As Di says I'd call the FOS but I think you'll find that their position on pursuing the underwriter is that they won't adjudicate on any cases until there is case law which clarifies the underwriter's liability.

Notwithstanding the liability issue, taking PPI cases to court invariably ends in failure - there has only ever been a handful of successes.

dunstonh

I had a Goldfish credit card for which no bank will accept my claim. The current creditor (Barclaycard) says they have no information (they may be right) and the creditor with whom the card/policy was taken (HFC) says they sold it with full liabilities, i.e. they didn't keep anything.

That is correct. Accounts closed prior to the transfer of ownership did not get the date transferred across. Goldfish is a common example that appears on the board.

I don't want to go to the FOS due to the long wait. I'd rather take it to court if possible.

Not a good idea. The PPI issue is very much an FSA ruling. There was no breach of law with the sale of PPI in most cases. If you go to court, you will have to show that it was mis-sold. That means you supplying the evidence and having proof to support your allegations. Cases that have gone to court so far have had very low success rates. Even Black Horse, which has a near 99% uphold rate at the FOS, has been winning court cases.

Alpine_Star

dunstonh wrote: »

Not a good idea. The PPI issue is very much an FSA ruling. There was no breach of law with the sale of PPI in most cases. If you go to court, you will have to show that it was mis-sold. That means you supplying the evidence and having proof to support your allegations. Cases that have gone to court so far have had very low success rates. Even Black Horse, which has a near 99% uphold rate at the FOS, has been winning court cases.

I agree. Best v Black Horse being a case in point.

http://www.lexology.com/library/document.ashx?g=1328aff6-c74e-490f-9800-baccb896ab1a#page=1

Any cause of action would have to be based on a breach of ICOB which is notoriously inadequate to rely on in PPI mis-selling cases, as Justice Ousley highlighted in the BBA Judicial Review judgment:

''Ms Sinclair [for the FSA] gave illustrations in her Witness Statement of the regulatory gap which the BBA's contention would open up. There is no specific ICOB rule which prohibits the selling of a PPI policy to someone who can never claim under it, even where the seller knows that to be the case. Such conduct would be covered by Principles 1, 3 and 6, but not if the BBA argument were correct since there were specific rules governing the sale of PPI policies. There is no specific ICOB rule which prevents the non-advised sale of a PPI policy where the cost of the premium plus interest payable, when added to the loan, exceeds any amount which could ever be paid out under the policy. Yet that would engage Principles 1 and 6. There is no ICOB rule which prohibits, on a non-advised sale, the sale of a single premium PPI policy with a refund provision which is not proportionate to the duration of the policy where the seller knows that it is likely that the loan to which the policy was related would be refinanced shortly after the policy was taken out. This would be a breach of the Principles as explained in common failing 15.''

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/999.html

It is because the FOS take account of the FSA's Principles (which are not actionable in law and therefore cannot be considered by the courts) when adjudicating PPI complaints that they find in favour of so many claimants.

tifo

dunstonh wrote: »

Accounts closed prior to the transfer of ownership did not get the date transferred across. Goldfish is a common example that appears on the board.

HFC say everything was transferred, including all liabilities. They explained that this was done as per FSA guidelines.

As I said, none will deal with my complaint because all say they have no data for the account.

tifo

Alpine_Star wrote: »

It is because the FOS take account of the FSA's Principles (which are not actionable in law and therefore cannot be considered by the courts) when adjudicating PPI complaints that they find in favour of so many claimants.

FSA rules are part of the legislation under the FSMA 2000. This means they are part of the law.

Alpine_Star

tifo wrote: »

FSA rules are part of the legislation under the FSMA 2000. This means they are part of the law.

The Principles are not actionable precisely by virtue of s150(2) of FSMA - this is essentially what the Judicial Review was all about.

1. The eleven Principles, denoted by an R as rules, are in Chapter 2 of the section of the Handbook entitled "Principles for Businesses". Chapter 2 is referred to by its shorthand title as PRIN; the Chapter applies generally to all businesses, not just to those undertaking the sale of PPI policies. I cite the more relevant ones:
   "R. The Principles
   1. Integrity A firm must conduct its business with integrity.
   2. Skill, care and diligence A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence.
   6. Customers' interests A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.
   7. Communications with clients A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading.
   9. Customers: relationships of Trust
   A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment."
2. PRIN R3.4.4 contains the limitation permitted by s150(2), and states that:
   "A contravention of the rules in PRIN does not give rise to a right of action by a private person under section 150 of the Act (and each of those rules is specified under s 150(2) of the Act as a provision giving rise to no such right of action)."
3. The commentary on the role of the Principles is in chapter 1.1 of PRIN. G denotes it all as guidance. Their stated purpose is to reflect the regulatory objectives and to be "a general statement of the fundamental obligations of firms under the regulatory system". It sets out the consequences of a breach. Although breach of a Principle does not give rise to a cause of action for breach of statutory duty, paragraph 1.1.7G states that breaching a Principle makes a firm liable to disciplinary sanction. In deciding whether there has been a breach of a Principle, the FSA would look to the standard of conduct required by the Principles. It would be for the FSA to prove fault on the part of the firm. The Principles were also relevant to the FSA's powers to gather information, to vary certain permissions, to its powers of investigation and intervention, and to possible injunction or restitution proceedings. This guidance says nothing about their relevance to redress or compensation under the Ombudsman Scheme.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/999.html

tifo

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The Principles are not actionable precisely by virtue of s150(2) of FSMA

Yes, i'm aware of this. Conduct of Business rules apply but they're also not actionable. Only Banking:COBs allow a cause of action under s.150.

I meant action to reclaim PPI premiums and to let them argue however they want.

Alpine_Star

tifo wrote: »

I meant action to reclaim PPI premiums and to let them argue however they want.

I don't understand. Care to elaborate?

dunstonh

HFC say everything was transferred, including all liabilities. They explained that this was done as per FSA guidelines.

Liability may have transferred (it usually does) but documents of closed accounts are not usually transferred.

FSA rules are part of the legislation under the FSMA 2000. This means they are part of the law.

There are many aspects of FSA rules, principles and guidelines that are not governed by law but governed by the FSA.