PPI - First National House Finance Ltd

gettinglifeback

dunstonh wrote: »

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.



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



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).



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.

Hi , thanks for all replies:

Received this info today

Polices Sold Pre-January 2005

Specifics FSA regulations mediation of insurance did not apply before 2005. However, the FSA's principles for business did, and most providers were signed up to the General Insurance Standard Council (GISC) Code

This, and the Association of British Insurer's (ABI) code. which pre-dated the (GISC), means that the provider can be held to account for mis-selling PPI.

Where sale's pre-dated 2005 and the provider was not covered by regulations or membership of a standard code it is possible to complain to underwriters of the PPI

Pinnacle were members of FSA from 2001

Would it be right to say: The complaint is against Pinnacle the insurer's because they breached the GISC code by accepting business from a intermediary that did not subscribe to the code.

[Deleted User]

gettinglifeback wrote: »

Would it be right to say: The complaint is against Pinnacle the insurer's because they breached the GISC code by accepting business from a intermediary that did not subscribe to the code.

Since we obviously can do nothing to convince you, instead of posting about it over and over here, why don't you simply complain to Pinnacle again and then accept their decision this time if they will not accept liability? Didn't we just reiterate what you were told by Pinnacle in 2010?

dunstonh

Would it be right to say: The complaint is against Pinnacle the insurer's because they breached the GISC code by accepting business from a intermediary that did not subscribe to the code.

Accepting business from intermediaries that did not subscribe to the code is not a breach.

There is a very small number of circumstances where an insurer can carry the liability. It only affects a very small number of cases. We are talking a very very small number. By all means write to pinnacle. They will tell you if they are liable or not.

There have been successes. Just not many. Genworth taking on liability for some storecards for example is one that is seen. I have seen threads where pinnacle have rejected liability and others they have accepted liability.

Maybe magpiecottage will see this and clarify where an insurer would be liable on pre 2005 cases as he would know the specific rules that apply.

gettinglifeback

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Since we obviously can do nothing to convince you, instead of posting about it over and over here, why don't you simply complain to Pinnacle again and then accept their decision this time if they will not accept liability? Didn't we just reiterate what you were told by Pinnacle in 2010?

Its not about convincing me, you give information which obviously has been tested with others getting refunds, I contacted the FOS today and advised that since the broker is operating no more the claim should be directed to pinnacle, and regardless that it was pre 2005 , FOS advised that it would be something they would take on after complaint is made to pinnacle and final response is give ( 8 weeks) , so you see is pretty hard to convince when qualified professionals are advising, and then a fresh thread were pinnacle are upholding claims against them (The saga continues)

[Deleted User]

gettinglifeback wrote: »

I FOS advised that it would be something they would take on after complaint is made to pinnacle and final response is give ( 8 weeks)

FOS can't be involved in your case other than to advise that you MIGHT have some recourse to the insurer since the circumstances of your complaint pre-dates regulation by several years.

gettinglifeback wrote: »

so you see is pretty hard to convince when qualified professionals are advising, and then a fresh thread were pinnacle are upholding claims against them (The saga continues)

Which fresh thread is about Pinnacle? I did see one about GE Money, but even that one is inconclusive.

By the way, my advice was for you to actually complaint to Pinnacle which is not so different from what the telephone operator (not a "qualified professional" Ombudsman) at FOS told you!

As you say, the "saga continues" but it'll be without me as I'm taking my leave of your thread.

gettinglifeback

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

FOS can't be involved in your case other than to advise that you MIGHT have some recourse to the insurer since the circumstances of your complaint pre-dates regulation by several years.

Which fresh thread is about Pinnacle? I did see one about GE Money, but even that one is inconclusive.

By the way, my advice was for you to actually complaint to Pinnacle which is not so different from what the telephone operator (not a "qualified professional" Ombudsman) at FOS told you!

As you say, the "saga continues" but it'll be without me as I'm taking my leave of your thread.

Well thanks for that, guess you do not like other opinions put across when it goes against your advice, but thats ok, but as you asked thought I would let you know the fresh thread is called The sage continues,

Thanks for your help so far

Cheers

-taff

Anyone on the phone to you from the FOS is not a qualified advisor. They are call center operatives and they really really hate telling someone their complaint will not succeed. So they never do.

[Deleted User]

gettinglifeback wrote: »

The sage continues,

As I said, a far from conclusive thread about GE Money which has very little to do with your complaint!

Now I really am off....:p

gettinglifeback

Seriouly Moneyineptitude you need to grow up, what does it say to the left under my user name, Newbie, please be nice, sticking tounges out is not very nice is it? if you have nothing nice to say then dont say nothing, why the need to be insulting.

And as for it having little to do with me, think you are wrong yet again, My lenders were first national/ g e money , same as op, and we just happen to have same underwriters regarding the ppi, so very alike in my book especially as both pre 2005 , and I asked about broker as these lenders are sub-prime (hence needing a broker) as can not sell direct to public, so you see the thread does have some interest to myself.

gettinglifeback

-taff wrote: »

Anyone on the phone to you from the FOS is not a qualified advisor. They are call center operatives and they really really hate telling someone their complaint will not succeed. So they never do.

Evening Taff, thanks for letting me know, and would they also say that it is something they could look into should pinnacle reject the claim, even if its not possible for them to look into such a complaint , the call handler said the date has no bearing on the FOS looking into such a complaint

My intentions were to send a letter regarding my complaint and threaten the legal route giving them 2 weeks to respond, rather then messing around with FOS-