Black Horse and Carland

Captainkid

Hi, I'll keep this as simple as possible (for the moment).

Trying to reclaim miss sold PPI monies back from a Black Horse policy sold by Carland (now defunct) on the basis that it was A) perceived to be the only way of securing the finance and because it was a front loaded policy - interest charged on whole amount paid back in monthly payments.

Black Horse are stating that there's nothing that they can do as it wasn't sold by them (even though Black Horse is all over the paperwork - and I presume they got the money too) and because Carland no longer exist.

My question is whether to continue pursuing Black Horse as I believe them to be the liable party or do I take the brush off and try the ombudsman against Carland - who technically don't exist under that name anymore ?

-taff

Depends on when it was sold. If it was prior to January 2005 they weren't regulated. If it was after 2005, you can complain to the FSCS.
You cannot force Black Horse to give you your money because they didn't sell it to you, Carland did.

dunstonh

Black Horse are stating that there's nothing that they can do as it wasn't sold by them (even though Black Horse is all over the paperwork -

Black Horse are correct. Remember you are not complaining about the PPI. You are complaining about the sale of the PPI. Black Horse didnt sell it to you. Carland did.

My question is whether to continue pursuing Black Horse as I believe them to be the liable party

Your belief is wrong and illogical. So, no point continuing it.

or do I take the brush off and try the ombudsman against Carland - who technically don't exist under that name anymore ?

You cannot access the ombudsman as they only deal with firms that still exist/have assets. If this PPI was sold after January 2005, then you can refer your complaint to the FSCS. If it was before this then its game over.

Captainkid

Thanks for the speedy responses !

Still a little confused but then that doesn't take much . . .

As for my logic (or lack of it) surely Black Horse received the money for the PPI and Carland only got a commission on the sale (whereas with the actual loan part, for the car itself, went to Carland) - so how could (even if they were still around) Carland be expected to provide the refund on money they didn't get ?

If the car had a problem then Carland would have been the people to see but if a claim was made on the PPI then I'd have to go through Black Horse because it's "their" policy ?

I found this snippet on this site (which got me first thinking about this) and although it might not be in context with my actual situation it gave me some reason to believe (rightly or wrongly) that it was still the PPI provider that was the one to chase . . .

Firstly, lenders are very keen to have you beleive that the dealer or broker sold you the policy. This is of course nonesense in most cases as it is usually the lender who provides the cover through a third party arrangement they have with an insurer.

dunstonh

As for my logic (or lack of it) surely Black Horse received the money for the PPI and Carland only got a commission on the sale (whereas with the actual loan part, for the car itself, went to Carland) - so how could (even if they were still around) Carland be expected to provide the refund on money they didn't get ?

Black horse received the money for the PPI and would have paid a proportion of that to the insurer. Carland were paid a commission for the sale.

The whole PPI issue is nothing to do with PPI as a product. It is to do with how it was sold. Black Horse never spoke to you. They didnt sell you the product. You are alleging a wrong doing by Carland. So, why should black Horse have liability for that?

Look at it another way. I am an IFA. I put in place financial products every day. Lets say someone pays me £500 for advice but I give the wrong advice and the loss is £10,000. a) should the company I recommended pay redress - no. They were not the ones that did wrong. b) should I only pay the £500 I received back? no. I would be responsible for the £10,000. Carland did wrong (in your opinion as we dont actually know what you would be complaining about). Black Horse did nothing wrong. What they earn from it is irrelevant.

If the car had a problem then Carland would have been the people to see but if a claim was made on the PPI then I'd have to go through Black Horse because it's "their" policy ?

If the car had a problem you went to the person that sold it. You are saying the sale of the PPI was a problem. You dont go back to the car manufacturer saying Carland sold it wrong. Equally you dont go to black horse saying carland sold it wrong.

I found this snippet on this site (which got me first thinking about this) and although it might not be in context with my actual situation it gave me some reason to believe (rightly or wrongly) that it was still the PPI provider that was the one to chase . . .

Quote:
Firstly, lenders are very keen to have you beleive that the dealer or broker sold you the policy. This is of course nonesense in most cases as it is usually the lender who provides the cover through a third party arrangement they have with an insurer.

This site often has articles which are over simplified or are wrong. If that statement exists then it is clearly wrong. The seller is responsible for the sale of products. Only if the seller is an agent of the company does the company have the liability. There is a small window of cases prior to FSA regulation where the insurer has the liability. However, yours is post regulation. So, that wouldnt apply.