GE Money- surely this cant be right?

kirleo1

Hi Guys, Ive just heard back from GE Money with a refusal to investigate my PPI claim on the grounds it would be unfair of them to do so? The reason they give is that the company who carried out/sold me my home improvements have now gone bust .

Dont know if im being thick but surely thats rubbish. GE money were the finance providers and my understanding from the sales people at that time was that they were governed by the finance provider so I had to have the PPI.
Thr resolutions officer at GE money states that this is her final response and any further enquiry should go through ther finance and leasing association

Any advice would be most welcome please

kirleo

dunstonh

Ive just heard back from GE Money with a refusal to investigate my PPI claim on the grounds it would be unfair of them to do so?

Which is logical and correct. The seller is who sold it to you and carries liability for the sale. Not the provider.

Dont know if im being thick but surely thats rubbish.

Its rubbish to expect someone who had no input in your decision to buy a product to carry the liability for that sale.

GE money were the finance providers and my understanding from the sales people at that time was that they were governed by the finance provider so I had to have the PPI.

GE Money were the provider. They were not the seller. The sales people may have given you a bunch of BS but they were not employed by GE Money and not representing them.

To look at that another way, if you go into Currys and the sales rep gives you a load of incorrect information about a Sony TV do you complain to Currys or Sony?

Any advice would be most welcome please

You are complaining to the wrong people. You need to complain to the sellers. you say they have gone bust and going by the response of GE Money, this would indicate it is a pre-regulation case. So, you get no FSCS protection either.

Bottom line is that it is game over.

WombleSW20_2

I would still take the case to FOS - there's rumours that FOS are trying to pin much of the pre-regulated mis-selling of PPI on the original insurers as they conducted much of the training. Nothing ventured, nothing gained!

magpiecottage

WombleSW20 wrote: »

I would still take the case to FOS - there's rumours that FOS are trying to pin much of the pre-regulated mis-selling of PPI on the original insurers as they conducted much of the training. Nothing ventured, nothing gained!

There's rumours that Wombles really exist.

To my knowledge no such case has ever been upheld and it seems likely that insurer would take FOS to judicial review if it tried (they have deep pockets).

In any case, GE would not have been the insurer.

src007

I've made quite a few complaints against the underwriter of a PPI policy.

I've seen just one that's been successful. The underwriter just wrote back and upheld the complaint (despite not being the broker!).

However the FOS have also made some progress. For Marks and Spencer (and Marks and Spencer only as far as I know) the FOS have managed to argue that the underwriter should take responsibility for the sales process and the underwriter of M + S’s PPI has conceded. Although the one adjudication that I’ve seen against this underwriter, the complaint was rejected by the FOS on its merits.

I've also seen a pre-regulation Welcome Finance policy that can now be considered by the FOS. Aviva said that there was a ''misprint'' on one batch of paperwork and Aviva stated on the documentation that Welcome were acting on their agent. The FOS are now going to look at the merits of the case and I think there is a good chance that it will be upheld.

So for underwriter complaints - Long shot, yes. Impossible no. Long wait, inevitable!