Carcraft PPI final response.

stefan55

I took out a ppi policy when i bought a car in april 2007, i complained and sent the following text allong with the questionaire. bare in mind i was 21 and very clueless with contracts/money at the time i purchased.


"I am unhappy with the sale of my PPi insurance and believe i may have been mis-sold the policy due to the following reasons.



My meeting took place in a busy carcraft sales office, Not sure who the person i was speaking to was from Carcraft dealership or the finance company, I was given brief information on the policy and paperwork, I Can remember not getting a full explanation of cost. I remember not having adequate time to ask questions and read about the policy or the credit agreement. I decided to take the payment protection insurance because i was under the impression i had a better chance of receiving the credit, also the sales adviser was rather persuasive around the whole PPI policy,At the time I had an excellent accident/sickness/death policy with my employer which i feel would have covered most of my loan repayments, I also had shares available in standard life plc and was available anytime.



I am very unhappy with the ppi policy i was sold, i have now realised it was a complete waste of money and was totally useless to me, I really did not need the payment protection insurance. I feel the sales adviser did not give me enough information or time to think about the policy before sale, I felt i was pressured and persuaded into buying the ppi policy in what was a very busy sales environment. Also i have realised that taking PPI did not give me anymore chance of getting credit,



I confirm i would like to make a formal complaint about the sale of payment protection insurance described, I confirm all the information given in this complaint is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge"

recived a final response off carcraft today allong with all my demands and needs/contract paper work with them saying my complaint has not been accepted, due to the fact i had ticked all the boxes and signed the paper work... like they do when they throw all them peices of paper at you saying sign here, here and here. Noticed on my demands and needs it stated i was on statury sick pay, this wasnt the case.. i had full excellant sickness death benefits with my employer.. had been with them 5 and half years at the time and still am. i think i wouldnt had said SSP, hope the inexperianced Finance advisor hasnt put what he wanted here, like i said i signed the form without getting enough time to review it,

Carcraft said in there final response.

"unfortunately we are unable to uphold your ppi complaint on this occasion, your finance was secure and the purchase of ppi was completely seperate to your eligibility and acceptance of finance, the PPI policy was completley optional and we beleive you were made aware of this bye the representitive amd in the paperwork, If you were under any mistaken impression that you must purchase ppi you could have ended the agreement within 30 days, the cost of the ppi was clearly displayed on the credit agreement you signed,

i took out this ppi at the end of april 2007 , i believe carcraft were mis selling policies between 1st april 2007 and september 2008, and got fined bye the FSA for doing so.

I have been given a reject or accept outcome letter bye carcraft which says to be returned to them within 7 days, buts say they dont have to give anymore correspondence... should i refer it to the ombudsmen? , anyone been in my situation? anyone with any advice i would realy appriciate it,
Sorry for any spelling/grammer mistakes.

thankyou.

amersall

Did you pay one payment each month to this loan and PPI and not a separate payment for the PPI? if you did, this is Single Premium PPI and this is the reason for mis sell that you use, this was a loan on the loan paid to term end with interest, if you cancelled the PPI they would have given you a pro rata rebate of the PPI and the remaining PPI is still on the loan to term end.

If you settled this loan early then, as above you, would have a pro rata rebate and you would have paid back the remaining PPI in with the settlement figure.

Reject the reasons Carcraft gave for not upholding, if this is a Single Premium PPI, let them know that the full cost and the unfair pro rata rebates were not explained to you at the point of, sale and if they do not reconsider your complaint you will pass this to FOS.
Mention about the fine too.

magpiecottage

stefan55 wrote: »

bare in mind i was 21 and very clueless with contracts/money at the time i purchased.

The law says that if you are 18 or over you are capable of entering into a contract and knowing what you are doing.

My meeting took place in a busy carcraft sales office, Not sure who the person i was speaking to was from Carcraft dealership or the finance company, I was given brief information on the policy and paperwork

That suggests you WERE provided with details of the policy.

I Can remember not getting a full explanation of cost.

To me, that does not ring true. The analogy I would draw is that of a blind person realising they cannot see.

They can only be aware of their condition if you have previous experience of seeing or somebody has told them that other people have the sense of sight.

I remember not having adequate time to ask questions and read about the policy or the credit agreement.

The same principle applies.

I decided to take the payment protection insurance because i was under the impression i had a better chance of receiving the credit, also the sales adviser was rather persuasive around the whole PPI policy

I doubt you have no evidence to support that assertion.

At the time I had an excellent accident/sickness/death policy with my employer which i feel would have covered most of my loan repayments

Possibly but you have not provided evidence of this and and it would not help you if you lost your job.

I also had shares available in standard life plc and was available anytime.

Again you have provided no evidence of the value and shares in one company are always subject to market fluctuation. The IFAs who post here will tell you that emergency funds should be held on deposit, not in equities and particularly not in the shares of just one company.

Noticed on my demands and needs it stated i was on statury sick pay, this wasnt the case.. i had full excellant sickness death benefits with my employer.. had been with them 5 and half years at the time and still am. i think i wouldnt had said SSP, hope the inexperianced Finance advisor hasnt put what he wanted here, like i said i signed the form without getting enough time to review it,

That, though, is an assertion you cannot prove.

The only possible scope I currently see for it being upheld at FOS is if, and only if, it was a single premium that was added to the loan.

JuicyJesus

I decided to take the payment protection insurance because i was under the impression i had a better chance of receiving the credit

There's also the point that that only counts as a mis-sale reason if they actually told you that it would give you a better chance of receiving the credit. If you just thought it would then that's not their fault.

Even if they did, you can't prove it.

src007

[QUOTE=stefan55;53795789]

Carcraft said in there final response.

"unfortunately we are unable to uphold your ppi complaint on this occasion, your finance was secure and the purchase of ppi was completely seperate to your eligibility and acceptance of finance, the PPI policy was completley optional and we beleive you were made aware of this bye the representitive amd in the paperwork, If you were under any mistaken impression that you must purchase ppi you could have ended the agreement within 30 days, the cost of the ppi was clearly displayed on the credit agreement you signed,

i took out this ppi at the end of april 2007 , i believe carcraft were mis selling policies between 1st april 2007 and september 2008,
[/QUOTE]

Its weird how amersell who (as far as I know) has no training can give far better advice than the so called ''experts'' who post on here.

In fact its quite sad.

I've seen Carcraft argue (THIS REALLY IS NOT A JOKE) that THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS were broken when the FOS upheld a PPI complaint agianst them.

Lets all cry ourselves to sleep for this organisation that was hit recently by the FSA fine.

magpiecottage

src007 wrote: »

Its weird how amersell who (as far as I know) has no training can give far better advice than the so called ''experts'' who post on here.

This from a self-styled "expert".

I've seen Carcraft argue (THIS REALLY IS NOT A JOKE) that THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS were broken when the FOS upheld a PPI complaint agianst them.

That reminds me of the Home Secretary's "pet cat" anecdote. That turned out not to be entirely true and is not relevant to the OP.

Lets all cry ourselves to sleep for this organisation that was hit recently by the FSA fine.

I fail to see the relevance of this comment.

I am not a fan of Carcraft. They are not my client and I doubt they would use my services because, based on reports from others on MSE, I think I would force them along a road which they do not wish to travel.

However, the OP's arguments failed for the reasons I gave. I have pointed out the one basis on which the complaint would be upheld by FOS.

burty8899

amersell is giving me advice with an on going halifax complain, and the advice is invaluable. however i have taken the opinions and advice on my complaint from magpiecottage and others too, the way i see it its all free advice so the more i can get the better, it also helps me target my complaint on what is more likely to be upheld than the he said/she said argument!

[Deleted User]

burty8899 wrote: »

helps me target my complaint on what is more likely to be upheld than the he said/she said argument!

It's this hearsay type complaint that has the least chance of success, of course. (As the OP of this thread found)
As you say, it's good to take on board a wide variety of opinions and advice. It's also often pertinent to realise why some users here seem to have a posting agenda.
For example, you'll obviously see widely opposing viewpoints from someone who claims to work for a Claims Management Company as opposed a declared Financial Advisor.;)