Arnold Clark PPI

daylon

Hello

Looking for some advice, if possible.

I made a claim for 3 car loans I had dating back to 2003. They all had PPI on them on separate policies. My argument with them was that I was missold it on the basis I was told it was mandatory to take out the insurance by the car salesman.... It turns out it wasn't...but the salesman told me that it had to be taken out.
My other argument was that I didn't need it as I was in a job where if I became ill or had to be off work , I would be paid 6 months full wages and then minimum half wages for the other 6 months. I also had 2 superannuation pensions in place that covered me if I had to give up work completely due to illness or accident. The PPI policies only would have paid out for 12 months if i required them. Arnold Clark got back to me, saying they reject the claim as I had signed the form for PPI agreeing to PPI and they also state"clark cover is sold on a non advised basis" Yet they also quote on the form (I signed) this part which "I acknowledged and read- by signing" - "I have had the benefits of clark cover explained to me and I have chosen not to take the plan. In doing so u(sic)understand my repayments/liability will no(sic) be covered".

They are basically saying because I signed the form, I required it and understood it and that their salesman do not advise on taking it out.

Is it worth taking this to the ombusdman?.
Thanks in advance

picky123

Ombudsman has no jurisdiction, car dealers only became regulated January 2005. The ombudsman will not take it up.

Game over

daylon

Even though they organised the loan and PPI on behalf of Finance companies like Fortis lease and Northridge finance ?
It wasn't the car dealer who provided the loan, they sold it.

picky123

SALE of insurance backed products from car dealers was not regulated until January 2005. Therefore your sales were unregulated, and the FOS has no juristiction.

I am amazed that they sent you a long winded letter justifying the sale, they should just state it was unregulated.

-taff

You can try complaining to the insurers, but don't get your hopes up.

dunstonh

Even though they organised the loan and PPI on behalf of Finance companies like Fortis lease and Northridge finance ?

The issue is how it sold. Not the product.

They are basically saying because I signed the form, I required it and understood it and that their salesman do not advise on taking it out.

The requirements for advised sales and non-advised sales are different.

Is it worth taking this to the ombusdman?.

Have they said you have access to the FOS now? With it being pre-regulation as mentioned above) you do not get access to the FOS unless the company volunteer to let you. It will state whether you do or not on the response you have received.

daylon

Thanks for the replies guys.

Two of the loans/PPI were after 2005.

Do you still think its worth going to the Ombudsman, for those two.

[Deleted User]

daylon wrote: »

Two of the loans/PPI were after 2005.

Do you still think its worth going to the Ombudsman, for those two.

That's why you've received such a detailed response to your complaint. They state that the cover was sold to you on a "non-advised" basis, what evidence would you take to FOS that this was NOT the case?

daylon

dunstonh wrote: »

The issue is how it sold. Not the product.



The requirements for advised sales and non-advised sales are different.



Have they said you have access to the FOS now? With it being pre-regulation as mentioned above) you do not get access to the FOS unless the company volunteer to let you. It will state whether you do or not on the response you have received.[/QUOTE]

Yes they have.

dunstonh

The later loans bring you into regulation and that is why you can refer to the FOS. So, that is what you do if you do not agree with their response. However, the FOS will only consider the post regulation loans. Not the pre-regulation unless the firm volunteers to allow the FOS to look at them.

daylon

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

That's why you've received such a detailed response to your complaint. They state that the cover was sold to you on a "non-advised" basis, what evidence would you take to FOS that this was NOT the case?

I do not have any evidence, only my Wife who witnessed it..but thats not going to hold up!!
In speaking to other people who have bought cars from them in the past they have a particulary bad reputation for doing this(insisting it is compulsory). I just called up the Ombudsman for advice and they will investigate it.They are sending out forms etc for me to fill in.
I suppose the only hope is that they may see that I didn't need it due to my salary being paid for a minimum of 6months full pay if I was off work.
Thanks