PPI from First Plus

monstermuncher

My ex husband and I took out a loan with First Plus, and were sold PPI and told that if we didn't take it out, we wouldn't be accepted for the loan, I understand it isn't legal for them to do that.

Apparently he enquired about reclaiming last year, and was told we'd missed a cut off point so was unable to. I don't know what cut off point he was referring to, but the loan was taken out in October 2006, so within 6 years.

Does anyone know what cut off point he may have been referring to might have been? Or was he just fobbed off and believed them?

scotthayes

He was fobbed off. I just wrote them a letter in November last year and within 8 weeks they agreed to payback all PPI dating back to a loan I took out in 2002. Don't give up!!!

dunstonh

I understand it isn't legal for them to do that.

No. There is no actual law preventing them from doing that. Indeed, those going down the court route have found that to their cost. It is the regulator who has said that people should not be told that insurance will make the decision more likely when it is not the case. If it is the case and insurer insist on insurance then it is allowed.

The problem with this though is that it is a verbal accusation which cannot be proven. It's a he said/she said scenario. You typically need another reason for a complaint to be successful with this one. In the case of a loan, that is very often the insurance being front loaded and charged interest on.

monstermuncher

Thank you. My complaint is actually with the broker (Central Capital) so I'm even less hopeful because from what I've seen, they're not very helpful. I've been doing a lot of googling, and it seems that they often use the 'older than 6 years' line to get out of paying up, although this doesn't apply to me. They said they'd write to me in 7 days, and then make a decision within 12 weeks.

My only hope is that they record all their telephone calls, and then there will be a record to back me up.

It's sort of become less important due to unexpected events, so at least it's taken the pressure off and put it into perspective a bit.

magpiecottage

monstermuncher wrote: »

I've been doing a lot of googling, and it seems that they often use the 'older than 6 years' line to get out of paying up

That will not apply to any case set up from 14 January 2005.

However, that does not mean your case will necessarily be upheld.

monstermuncher

I fully expect them to try to wriggle out of it! I'm just annoyed that it's the only defence I can find reference to them using, so I'm totally unprepared for whatever they come back with.

dunstonh

What other people are getting reasons doesnt matter for you. Yours matters to you. It may be that those other people posted in 2011 and with regulation starting in 2005 (assuming that regulatory year is applicable), the difference is 6 years. Hence they jump the assumption of a 6 year rule. However, we are now 2012. So, it would be 7 years. Next year will be 8 years. It is the line in the sand with 14/1/2005 that matters (again assuming that particular date applies)

monstermuncher

I regret not doing it with the paperwork and stuff. I rang up to query it, and ended up putting the complaint in over the phone.

I'm worried they'll somehow use that against me. I wish they'd hurry up and give me a decision, even if it's a rejection, I can't stand waiting!