More help with BH PPI claim please (their reason why Single Premium PPI was justified

mitchgixer6

Hi all,

Looking for some more guidance please with my PPI claims. Just drafted a letter to BH to update my challenges on their rejections, and I was re reading my initial rejection letters.

There is a paragraph that reads-:

"In order to asses whether a single premium policy was suitable for you we have considered all of your circumstances, including the likelihood at the time of sale that you would refinance your loan, whether you did actually refinance and the overall financial impact to you of that refinancing. We have concluded that it was not inappropriate to have recommended a single premium to you"

Can anyone tell me what they're on about here? This seems like a get out to me. I mean how could anyone have known at the time of sale whether I would refinance or not?? And why would that justify a single premium policy??

Confused now. Must state that this agreement goes back to 2002, so apparently is out-with the FSA guidelines.

AncientOfMu

mitchgixer6 wrote: »

Hi all,

Looking for some more guidance please with my PPI claims. Just drafted a letter to BH to update my challenges on their rejections, and I was re reading my initial rejection letters.

There is a paragraph that reads-:

"In order to asses whether a single premium policy was suitable for you we have considered all of your circumstances, including the likelihood at the time of sale that you would refinance your loan, whether you did actually refinance and the overall financial impact to you of that refinancing. We have concluded that it was not inappropriate to have recommended a single premium to you"

Can anyone tell me what they're on about here? This seems like a get out to me. I mean how could anyone have known at the time of sale whether I would refinance or not?? And why would that justify a single premium policy??

Confused now. Must state that this agreement goes back to 2002, so apparently is out-with the FSA guidelines.

They are saying they looked at whether you were likely to re-finance. they decided at the time of sale you were likely to pay the credit till the end of the term and so single premium was appropriate.

Was this a loan?
Was it settled early?

I can kinda understand what they are getting at, not that I particularly agree with it.

With being BH it may have been outside FSA guidlines but they still would have had to adhere to the BOS i would guess or some other regulator at the time.

Maybe someone with a better understanding of BH will be on shortly.

Cheers

Mu

dunstonh

The FOS will uphold around 99% of single premium complaints. However, the courts do not consider that a breach. So, as this is not a case that comes under FSA regulation (and therefore the FOS wont look at it) then you are on a sticky wicket. Someone tried the courts with Black Horse last year with a single premium PPI and Black Horse won.

magpiecottage

Black Horse was sometimes covered by the GISC code (and therefore FOS will look at it) and sometimes not.

Also, if it was not Black Horse that actually sold the cover then they have no liability anyway.

mitchgixer6

Thanks for the replies folks.

The agreement was HP for a motorbike which was paid over the full term of 60 months.

The more I read the more it seems unlikely that I'll get anything back. Court was looking like it might be the only option if they refuse again, bit maybe not if someone lost to them.

Why would a single premium from them be any different to all the others?

mitchgixer6

AncientOfMu wrote: »

They are saying they looked at whether you were likely to re-finance. they decided at the time of sale you were likely to pay the credit till the end of the term and so single premium was appropriate.

Was this a loan?
Was it settled early?

I can kinda understand what they are getting at, not that I particularly agree with it.

With being BH it may have been outside FSA guidlines but they still would have had to adhere to the BOS i would guess or some other regulator at the time.

Maybe someone with a better understanding of BH will be on shortly.

Cheers

Mu

As this was HP for a motorbike, then surely I would be MORE likely to refinance, possibly settling early to trade up to a newer model.

I have one claim in which I settled early to trade up, and another which I paid in full, so wouldn't have thought they would be equal although they have used exactly the same wording in both rejection letters????

AncientOfMu

mitchgixer6 wrote: »

As this was HP for a motorbike, then surely I would be MORE likely to refinance, possibly settling early to trade up to a newer model.

I have one claim in which I settled early to trade up, and another which I paid in full, so wouldn't have thought they would be equal although they have used exactly the same wording in both rejection letters????

If it was HP for a motorbike surely you would complain to the dealer that you bought the bike from and sold the PPI to you?

Unless you took out the finance seperately with BH.

From what you have written I wouldnt be surprised if BH were stalling hoping you will go away. reject thier rejections and if they give you a final answer take it to the FOS.

Cheers

Mu

mitchgixer6

AncientOfMu wrote: »

If it was HP for a motorbike surely you would complain to the dealer that you bought the bike from and sold the PPI to you?

Unless you took out the finance seperately with BH.

From what you have written I wouldnt be surprised if BH were stalling hoping you will go away. reject thier rejections and if they give you a final answer take it to the FOS.

Cheers

Mu

Just off the phone with the FOS to try and help clear this up. I just went straight to BH with the claim as I didn't even think about contacting the dealer. I was slightly confused as to why BH were looking into it then once I did a bit more research and realised I probably should have gone to the dealer.

Apparently both dealerships that sold me the policies were NOT covered by any regulatory bodies at the time of sale, which is why BH are looking into it and why they didn't send me to the dealers themselves when I put the claims in. As they were the underwriters they have some sort of liability according to the FOS.

I'm just going to keep pestering BH until their 6 month limit is up (August) then I'll see if the FOS can help.

mitchgixer6

AncientOfMu wrote: »

They are saying they looked at whether you were likely to re-finance. they decided at the time of sale you were likely to pay the credit till the end of the term and so single premium was appropriate.

Was this a loan?
Was it settled early?

I can kinda understand what they are getting at, not that I particularly agree with it.

With being BH it may have been outside FSA guidlines but they still would have had to adhere to the BOS i would guess or some other regulator at the time.

Maybe someone with a better understanding of BH will be on shortly.

Cheers

Mu

Can't really see the reasoning to be honest. How could they have predicted whether I would refinance or not? The point is not whether I DID refinance or not.

You can't really use foresight like that as a justification for selling something.

dunstonh

As they were the underwriters they have some sort of liability according to the FOS.

The FOS have an opinion that it could be the case in some circumstances but nothing ever seems to come from it and it goes against the normal thinking. I think it would be very hard for them to show that a company has a liability when they or one of their employees or representatives had no involvement in the sale. Remember that it is not the product but the advice/sale that is being complained about.