PPI - First National House Finance Ltd

gettinglifeback

Thanks for replies , I beleive the broker was not regulated, Pinnacle were regulated so should bear some liability for the policy, the complaint would be against the insurer as they breached the GISC code by accepting business from an intermediary that did not subscribe to the code

but for that breach that sale , which I am now realise was a missale because it was a single premium added to the loan , would not of occurred

because the loan was taken out in 2003 cardif pinnacle are the one to claim against because they provided the ppi policy and if a claim was to be made they are the one's the claim would of been made against

The courts have rule single premium's are all missold ? so why would this differ? regardless of age or regulations

gettinglifeback

And why are such policies now banned?

dunstonh

Thanks for replies , I beleive the broker was not regulated, Pinnacle were regulated so should bear some liability for the policy, the complaint would be against the insurer as they breached the GISC code by accepting business from an intermediary that did not subscribe to the code

That was not required. For example, I am an IFA but was not regulated until January 2005. However, it did not mean I couldn't advise and set up insurance prior to that date. I didnt need to be a member of the GISC. Providers could accept business from me without them carrying liability.

There is a small window where the insurer does cover the liability but that does not normally occur from broker arranged business.

The courts have rule single premium's are all missold ?

They have ruled no such thing.

so why would this differ? regardless of age or regulations

Because your assumptions are wrong.

And why are such policies now banned?

They are not banned. Indeed, one of my mortgage advisers has arranged one this week.

gettinglifeback

dunstonh wrote: »

That was not required. For example, I am an IFA but was not regulated until January 2005. However, it did not mean I couldn't advise and set up insurance prior to that date. I didnt need to be a member of the GISC. Providers could accept business from me without them carrying liability.

Never said you could not sell it, or either a member of GISC, but insurers were and they can be held responsible

There is a small window where the insurer does cover the liability but that does not normally occur from broker arranged business.

if the insurers received the policy amount and paid a broker a secret commission , then I believe both hold liability for the misselling and under handed practises



They have ruled no such thing.



Because your assumptions are wrong.

And if assumptions are so wrong, why would a claims company be willing to seek a return of the policy on a no win no fee basis?



They are not banned. Indeed, one of my mortgage advisers has arranged one this week.

So ppi can be sold with the full amount due at the start of the agreement of credit, added to the loan amount and subject to interest over 25 years , with the policy only running for 5 years cover, so a £2000 ppi policy costs the borrower over £10,000 in total, nore does not seem right, so what policies were banned then, your information seems to conflict with what many others state throughout many websites.

-taff

gettinglifeback wrote: »

Thanks for replies , I beleive the broker was not regulated, Pinnacle were regulated so should bear some liability for the policy, the complaint would be against the insurer as they breached the GISC code by accepting business from an intermediary that did not subscribe to the code

but for that breach that sale , which I am now realise was a missale because it was a single premium added to the loan , would not of occurred

because the loan was taken out in 2003 cardif pinnacle are the one to claim against because they provided the ppi policy and if a claim was to be made they are the one's the claim would of been made against

The courts have rule single premium's are all missold ? so why would this differ? regardless of age or regulations

As has been said, the courts haven't done that at all.

And you need to prove that Central Market were acting as agents of Cardiff Pinnacle. The insurer carries no liability for the sale, but good luck anyway.

gettinglifeback

And here is such statements from claims companies

Optional: It was not made clear to you that the insurance was optional.
Exclusions: You were not told about significant exclusions under the policy – for example, that you won't be covered for any pre-existing medical condition.
Interest: The adviser did not make it clear that the insurance cost would be added to the loan and you would be paying interest on it (if you were sold single premium PPI).
Expiry: If the adviser failed to tell you that the PPI cover would run out before the loan was paid off (if this was the case).
Advice: If you bought PPI after 14 January 2005 and the adviser tried to persuade you to take it out by saying something like 'we strongly recommend that you consider taking out PPI'. If so, the sale counts as an 'advised' sale and they should have issued a statement to show why a policy is suitable for you.
Not notified: PPI was added to your loan or mortgage without you being told.
Why most policies are useless

Unfortunately for consumers, millions of PPI policies were missold and many of them would have been useless and a waste of money to their policy holders if called upon. For this reason, in April 2011 the High Court in the UK ruled against the banks and in favour of the consumers, leaving the lenders with no alternative but to refund all premiums charged with associated interest – with an additional 8% statutory interest.

Despite the decision going against the banks they have yet to contact millions of their customers to notify them that they are owed money which was wrongfully taken from them. before it’s too late.

• Mis-selling: Many consumers have been sold policies they can never claim on. The self-employed and students, for example, often can't claim
• PPI cover runs out: Before it was banned by the Competition Commission, single premium PPI (SPPPI) was often added as an upfront lump sum to your loan. Most PPI policies only last for five years, so if your loan or finance agreement term lasted for longer than this, you'll still be paying interest on insurance that has long since expired
• Over-priced: Adding PPI to a £7,500 five-year loan could cost a wholly disproportionate additional £2,000-£3,000
• Short pay-out period: PPI linked to mortgages, credit cards or store cards usually pays out for a limited amount of time only. Often this is just 12 months
• Low cover levels: On some credit card PPI contracts, the insurance only covers the minimum monthly payment, meaning your balance may never reduce

dunstonh

Never said you could not sell it, or either a member of GISC, but insurers were and they can be held responsible

You are not reading the requirements correctly.

if the insurers received the policy amount and paid a broker a secret commission , then I believe both hold liability for the misselling and under handed practises

No that is a myth. It has also been tested in court and the person lost.

And if assumptions are so wrong, why would a claims company be willing to seek a return of the policy on a no win no fee basis?

Because they are sales reps who t can turn out a template letter in minutes and often get lucky.

gettinglifeback

Well thanks for your thoughts, although disappointed, so in reality then the whole high court ruling is nothing more then a smoke screen, as how are you suppose to seek a remedy to the misselling? as mine was definitely missold, £2000 upfront, added to the loan amount, after working out total cost, comes close to £13500, thats massive compared to cost of policy, could not claim when coming out of work, never explained, advised that ppi had to be taken otherwise loan would not be offered, broker and lender received a commission on the sale, lenders point finger to broker, broker disappeared, pinnacle underwriters, I know the policy was not fit for purpose, surely the insurer's would need details of my personal circumstances to offer cover, otherwise how would they know what policy would best suit

[Deleted User]

gettinglifeback wrote: »

so in reality then the whole high court ruling is nothing more then a smoke screen, as how are you suppose to seek a remedy to the misselling?

The court case had nothing whatever to do with the front loading of interest onto single premium policies. While certainly a valid mis-selling complaint, you can't put that to the mis-seller in your case because they are no longer trading.

gettinglifeback wrote: »

surely the insurer's would need details of my personal circumstances to offer cover, otherwise how would they know what policy would best suit

It was the responsibility of the seller (in your case Central Market) to ensure that the policy they sold was suitable for your needs. The insurer merely provided the policy as agreed with your seller.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what your reading of the information you've read may infer, you have a complaint against a seller who was not regulated at the time and has since ceased trading. The insurer is not responsible in this instance.

gettinglifeback wrote: »

I am hoping to reclaim the full cost of policy as a missold sale, any help will be greatly appreciated, thanks

Good luck with that.

dunstonh

so in reality then the whole high court ruling is nothing more then a smoke screen

In simple terms, the banks wanted to stop whole groups of people from complaining. The FSA wanted the banks to retrospectively apply todays rules to past sales. The banks didnt like it. The courts really only ruled on whether the FSA had the power to do that or not. The court said they did.

as how are you suppose to seek a remedy to the misselling? as mine was definitely missold, £2000 upfront,

yes it was. Single premium is bad post regulation (its viewed as bad pre-regulation as well but thats mainly against the banks.

broker and lender received a commission on the sale

Lender is unlikely to have got commission. They only get it on their own products. Not those arranged by brokers. However, commission is not a problem. The broker is obviously paid to arrange it. There is an area where undisclosed commission can see a refund but that is on fee based brokers who kept the commission as well. In those cases, the court ruled the commission should be refunded. With commissions a couple of hundred quid, most dont bother (plus most dont pay a fee).

I know the policy was not fit for purpose, surely the insurer's would need details of my personal circumstances to offer cover, otherwise how would they know what policy would best suit

The problem is that it is not the product that is at fault. It is the sale of the product. The seller has the lability.