Carrington Carr Home Finance in administration

eboy1975

montytb4, you seem to be suspicious of the solicitors letter and its motives but are quite happy to take misleading advice from MSE posters. You will note my previous comment where it is stated the 'product packager' is on the hook for carrington carr's ppi sales between aug 03 and nov 04. if you don't know who the product packager is, you will need to do some research.

From speaking to the director of mac fin, they proved the agency link between the underwriter/product packager & CC. He confirmed they are also working on NIG (01 - Aug 03) and Lloyds of London (TSOL) syndicate cases from 1992 when CC held a master policy with TSOL.

In respect of mac fin's tie's with directors of CC, a cursory glance at publicly held companies house information for both companies shows no shared or same directorships. Be careful of making defamatory remarks.

any comments about legal & general are not relevant. fscs will not deal with the matter as the product packager is still trading.

You can confirm the product packager information with the FOS technical helpdesk on 0207 964 1400.

magpiecottage

eboy1975 wrote: »

You will note my previous comment where it is stated the 'product packager' is on the hook for carrington carr's ppi sales between aug 03 and nov 04. if you don't know who the product packager is, you will need to do some research.

If your assertion is correct why do you not name the mortgage packager?

Unless and until you do, I will stand by the principle that he who asserts must prove and you have done one action but not the other.

From speaking to the director of mac fin, they proved the agency link between the underwriter/product packager & CC. He confirmed they are also working on NIG (01 - Aug 03) and Lloyds of London (TSOL) syndicate cases from 1992 when CC held a master policy with TSOL.

Neither NIG nor Lloyds of London syndicates are packagers so I am not sure of the relevance of this.

In addition, Lloyds syndicates were not members of a predecessor to FOS so there would be no jurisdiction.

any comments about legal & general are not relevant.

They are entirely relevant because the Financial Services Register records that Legal & General was responsible for Carrington Carr from 2 November 2004 - see here.

fscs will not deal with the matter as the product packager is still trading.

This is incorrect. The FSCS will not deal with mortgage complaints about events before 31 October 2004 or general insurance (including PPI) before 14 January 2005 because the law stipulates that it cannot.

It will not deal with complaints about Carrington Carr in respect of events after those dates because Carrington Carr was an Appointed Representative of Legal & General.

You can confirm the product packager information with the FOS technical helpdesk on 0207 964 1400.

So presumably you have telephoned that number and found out who it is. Why not tell us?

I wonder, too, why blossom tree reports being told something different by FOS.

eboy1975 wrote: »

In respect of mac fin's tie's with directors of CC, a cursory glance at publicly held companies house information for both companies shows no shared or same directorships. Be careful of making defamatory remarks.

I have checked the entire thread. Until your post, nobody had raised the name of Mac Fin on it.

montyb4 only spoke of a firm of solicitors. Mac Fin Consulting Limited is not a firm of solicitors, it is a claims management company.

Why did you bring their name up and infer that montyb4 was defaming them?

eboy1975

'If your assertion is correct why do you not name the mortgage packager?'

It is not the 'mortgage' packager who is culpable. Assurant Solutions (formerly D&D Homecare & Adminicle) as packager and underwriter is the responsible party.

'In addition, Lloyds syndicates were not members of a predecessor to FOS so there would be no jurisdiction.'

Wrong. NIG were GISC and TSOL is covered by ABI rules.

'They are entirely relevant because the Financial Services Register records that Legal & General was responsible for Carrington Carr from 2 November 2004 - see here.'

Wrong. This activity relates to pre GI day broker spppi sales.

'This is incorrect. The FSCS will not deal with mortgage complaints about events before 31 October 2004 or general insurance (including PPI) before 14 January 2005 because the law stipulates that it cannot.'

Wrong. You are getting your wires crossed between 'mortgage' packager and 'product' packager.

'I have checked the entire thread. Until your post, nobody had raised the name of Mac Fin on it.'

It follows the same MO as other CC threads.

magpiecottage

eboy1975 wrote: »

'If your assertion is correct why do you not name the mortgage packager?'

It is not the 'mortgage' packager who is culpable. Assurant Solutions (formerly D&D Homecare & Adminicle) as packager and underwriter is the responsible party.

There are two cases of PPI where Assurant was the insurer on which an Ombudsman has made a decision against Assurant that the policy was unsuitable.

In the first, DRN1685262, Assurant accepted responsibility for the sale. However, this was not mortgage PPI.

The second, DRN2799254, was but only took place in 2004.

Had Assurant been on the ball, they could have argued that the seller was bound by the Mortgage Code not the GISC or ABI rules and therefore the sale should be assessed against that standard.

'In addition, Lloyds syndicates were not members of a predecessor to FOS so there would be no jurisdiction.'

Wrong. NIG were GISC

Yes, but it was not, and is not, a Lloyds syndicate - and I never said it was.

and TSOL is covered by ABI rules.

But that does not give FOS jurisdiction.

Such jurisdiction only applies if the firm responding to it is required to do so under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the Transitional Rules of volunteers it.

A sale of general insurance prior to 14 January 2005 is not governed by the Act. The transitional rules will only apply if the business was a member of a relevant predecessor and was subsequently authorised and regulated by the FSA.

The relevant predecessors are the GISC and the Mortgage Code arbitration schemes. The ABI is not a relevant predecessor.

'They are entirely relevant because the Financial Services Register records that Legal & General was responsible for Carrington Carr from 2 November 2004 - see here.'

Wrong. This activity relates to pre GI day broker spppi sales.

It is correct because anybody looking to make a complaint about a sale from that date must take it to Legal & General - although there MAY be scope to complain elsewhere about an earlier sale.

'This is incorrect. The FSCS will not deal with mortgage complaints about events before 31 October 2004 or general insurance (including PPI) before 14 January 2005 because the law stipulates that it cannot.'

Wrong. You are getting your wires crossed between 'mortgage' packager and 'product' packager.

It is irrelevant. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 authorises the FSCS to make compensation payments in respect of the dsale of mortgages and general insurance from those dates. The FSCS can consider claims against providers from before the (although, in reality claimants would now be out of time) but not against sellers.

'I have checked the entire thread. Until your post, nobody had raised the name of Mac Fin on it.'

It follows the same MO as other CC threads.

But the fact remains that nobody was talking about Mac Fin on this thread until you raised the name. So it is not relevant here.

So a complaint against the insurer MIGHT work but I suspect there is a far stronger defence available to the insurer than you think. Whether they they choose to avail themselves of it is another matter.

eboy1975

Magpie

Have spoken to FOS technical helpdesk again, they confirmed an agency link has been proven between Assurant Solutions (formerly D&D Homecare) and CC. There is no DRN because Assurant rolled over and accepted liability. Just because you cannot find it on FOS's website does not mean it didn't happen.

D&D Homecare (now) Assurant became members of GISC on 8 Aug 03 hence the liability from that date.

Re: TSOL - speak to Lloyds Policyholder & Market Assistance team yourself.

FSCS - why do you keep referring to it when ASSURANT are alive and kicking?

'So a complaint against the insurer MIGHT work but I suspect there is a far stronger defence available to the insurer than you think. Whether they they choose to avail themselves of it is another matter.' - more fluff and blunder. Given the information provided, you are giving misleading information to posters.

It is clear what is happening, Assurant have been put on the hook for CC's activities. As stated previously, after speaking to the director of Mac Fin, they are working on opening other previously locked doors.

magpiecottage

Okay - so what we are saying is:

A complaint cannot be made to Carrington Carr or AWD because they no longer exist.

If a mortgage was sold on or after 2 November 2004 then a complaint can be made to Legal & General about the mortgage because Carrington Carr became an Appointed Representative of it for mortgages.

If a mortgage was sold prior to that, you cannot complain to anybody about it.

The main implication of this is not to do with PPI but the "product" that was future free mortgage advice - with the fee being added to the loan and interest being charged on it in the meantime.

If this was done on or after 2 November 2004 you should complain to L&G and get your money back because it is very poor advice.

If it was done before then, Legal & General is not responsible and nor is anybody else except Carrington Carr/AWD. As they do not exist any more you cannot complain to them - but you cannot get help from the FSCS because it was prior to 31 October 2004. (I appreciate in theory it could have been 31 October of 1 November 2004 but that would be an illegal sale and FSCS would no be able to help either).

With regard to PPI, if the sale (or more accurately, the advice) was on or after 14 January 2005 then a complaint should be to Legal & General.

Prior to that, and there must be a proven agency link.

What has been happening at FOS is that where a seller only sells products from one insurer, there is a deemed to be an exclusive agency relationship between the two. i.e. the seller did not sell general insurance products for anybody else.

This is frequently the case with non-mortgage PPI because the only insurance the seller offered was PPI and that only from one provider

In the case of Carrington Carr, I suspect it also sold other forms of general insurance, from other providers. Most mortgage brokers did and still do sell life assurance, critical illness, long term income protection and household insurance from various providers.

So I think that Assurant could successfully argue that PPI for a mortgage was not sold under an exclusive agency arrangement.

The one MPPI ombudsman decision does not say that FOS has found it responsible, simply that Assurant has accepted responsibility for that particular sale. This does not mean it has to continue doing so and, whilst it must honour any Ombudsman's decision already made, it is at liberty to change its stance (an Ombudsman's decision does not set a precedent).

This would not change the fact that other sales might have been under an exclusive agency.

For montyb4, the way forward would be to try a complaint to Assurant but appreciate that, unless and until it is upheld and accepted, there is no guarantee for a payout.

It seems clear that it was a missale, though so I would try it.

But the do not need Mac Fin or any other CMC to do that.

eboy1975

Magpie

Again, there is clear obfuscation in your response. Yes, LGPS is responsible for CC's advice post M day but that isn't the subject of montyb4's posts.

Research (from within MSE's forums) will show pre and post M day, CC were single tied to LGAS for life and critical illness cover.

Further research of FOS's LGPS post M day CC advice decisions will show simply complaining about the lifetime fee to be futile ie you signed the record of suitability so hard bum.

'What has been happening at FOS is that where a seller only sells products from one insurer, there is a deemed to be an exclusive agency relationship between the two. i.e. the seller did not sell general insurance products for anybody else.' - didn't I already confirm that to be the case. No need for extrapolations.

For future readers of this post - the entity who is responsible for single premium PPI policies sold by CC between 8 Aug 03 and 1 Nov 04 is Assurant Solutions. DO NOT SEND ANY COMPLAINTS TO LEGAL & GENERAL PARTNERSHIP SERVICES OR THE FSCS - they will not deal with it.

As always in life folks.....be careful who you take advice from (so called advisers and MSE 'experts').

magpiecottage

eboy1975 wrote: »

Yes, LGPS is responsible for CC's advice post M day but that isn't the subject of montyb4's posts.

Whicxh is why I have have put the full details.

Research (from within MSE's forums) will show pre and post M day, CC were single tied to LGAS for life and critical illness cover.

That is not the same as saying they were tied for ALL general insurance products.

Further research of FOS's LGPS post M day CC advice decisions will show simply complaining about the lifetime fee to be futile ie you signed the record of suitability so hard bum.

You can complain that the fee was added to the loan and the cost of the loan over the entire mortgage term was not explained. This means that Principle 7 has been breached.

'What has been happening at FOS is that where a seller only sells products from one insurer, there is a deemed to be an exclusive agency relationship between the two. i.e. the seller did not sell general insurance products for anybody else.' - didn't I already confirm that to be the case.

No - you simply said they had a tied relationship for some products. I am not convinced that is really the case. I suspect they also sold other providers general insurances - even if not the same product. That would probably be sufficient to break the link if the PPI insurer realised and botherd to argue its corner.

For future readers of this post - the entity who is responsible for single premium PPI policies sold by CC between 8 Aug 03 and 1 Nov 04 is Assurant Solutions.

The entity that has been accepting responsibility is Assurant Solutions. There is no absolute guarantee it will continue to do so. Firms can, and have, ceased to accept responsibility when they have found an entitlement to do so. Whilst it might seem unlikely, it could happen here.

DO NOT SEND ANY COMPLAINTS TO LEGAL & GENERAL PARTNERSHIP SERVICES OR THE FSCS - they will not deal with it.

As always in life folks.....be careful who you take advice from (so called advisers and MSE 'experts').

Including eboy1975 - who seems a little cosy with Mac Fin.

(I do not work for Assurant or L&G and never have btw - all of my clients have less than 20 employees/advisers).

eboy1975

More obfuscation......

'You can complain that the fee was added to the loan and the cost of the loan over the entire mortgage term was not explained. This means that Principle 7 has been breached.' - post up a FOS DRN whereby a 'fee being added to a mortgage,' complaint was made and subsequently upheld (against LGPS or any other firm).

'The entity that has been accepting responsibility is Assurant Solutions. There is no absolute guarantee it will continue to do so.' - so the FOS claiming jurisdiction over an entity will mean that entity at some point in the future will decide of its own volition it won't deal with any more complaints? Come on.....!

'Including eboy1975 - who seems a little cosy with Mac Fin.' - why? Because I am keen to ensure readers of this post are not advised by lower-deck lawyers!

There are sufficient pointers within these posts for the people who purchased these toxic products to approach those responsible for redress.

magpiecottage

eboy1975 wrote: »

More obfuscation......

More trolling ?????......

'You can complain that the fee was added to the loan and the cost of the loan over the entire mortgage term was not explained. This means that Principle 7 has been breached.' - post up a FOS DRN whereby a 'fee being added to a mortgage,' complaint was made and subsequently upheld (against LGPS or any other firm).

I do not have to. Whilst a published Ombudsman decision indicates how that Ombudsman thought about that case, if such a case has not reached an Ombudsman in the last two years (and one day) they will not have decided on it yet.

However, if you look at the Principles for Business in the FCA handbook, you will see that Principle 7 says "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."

That is why a consumer can argue that adding a fee to pay for future advice without making the true cost, with interest, clear is a breach.

There is also a breach of principles 6 and 8 because the firm took the money with no provision to ensure it could deliver on its commitment.

'The entity that has been accepting responsibility is Assurant Solutions. There is no absolute guarantee it will continue to do so.' - so the FOS claiming jurisdiction over an entity will mean that entity at some point in the future will decide of its own volition it won't deal with any more complaints? Come on.....!

I cannot say for certain because Assurant have never instructed me to consider their situation. If they did, I think the chances of me finding something that shows they need not consider the complaint are between 30 and 60 per cent. No that is not very precise because I do not have much information - but I have successfully done so on more than one occasion.

'Including eboy1975 - who seems a little cosy with Mac Fin.' - why? Because I am keen to ensure readers of this post are not advised by lower-deck lawyers!

I am a compliance consultant and complaint investigator.

CMCs are the pseudo lawyers.

There are sufficient pointers within these posts for the people who purchased these toxic products to approach those responsible for redress.

I agree - I made it quite clear in a post yesterday. I simply think that the door may close in respect of 2003-2004 business.

So if they are in that population then complaining sooner rather than later would be in their interests.