GE Money - the saga continues

-taff

No, you weren't suggesting that, but 'gettinglifeback' has chosen to interpret your success as a sign that they too can have a successful complaint even though their circumstances differ from yours.

-taff

If you have complained to the insurer, and got nowhere, there is nowhere else for you to go. No precedent has been set because one insurer upholds your complaint.
I think dunston was referring to your success with cardiff pinnacle when he mentioned the correlation between insurer and seller.

[Deleted User]

bodoni wrote: »

I am just quoting my circumstances and not suggesting for one moment that my experiences should be used as de facto guidance for anybody seeking redress with the same company.

Yes, although I was addressing you, my post (and Dunston's) was primarily aimed at the user you were replying to.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.

bodoni

If you have complained to the insurer, and got nowhere, there is nowhere else for you to go.

Well that's my perogative to continue as I see fit and I'll let Dunston clarify his stance.

[Deleted User]

bodoni wrote: »

Well that's my perogative to continue as I see fit and I'll let Dunston clarify his stance.

As I said, Dunston's post was aimed at the other user, he was basically saying that the fact you didn't use a broker could have been advantageous to you but not to the other user.

Unfortunately, if the circumstances of your complaint are prior to regulation then despite it being "your prerogative to continue as you see fit" FOS can't accept any referral you might make. You do have the option of taking legal action, of course, but I can't see you being able to convince a court that a "precedent" has been set because one insurer decided to pay up.


How did you get on with your PPI complaint that you were taking to court in May last year?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3984621

bodoni

I was referring to Taff, Moneyieptitude...

I think dunston was referring to your success with cardiff pinnacle when he mentioned the correlation between insurer and seller.

Regarding the going to small claims last May, I responded to their final letter with a summons and they settled out of court, no admission of liability, of course, just a gesture of goodwill.

gettinglifeback

Thanks again bodoni for taking the time to reply, some poster are to quick to try and prove themselves as authority rather then help someone seeking answers who are new to this whole ppi lark, even though I used a broker I am still going to send the complaint to pinnacle(underwriters) as the credit agreement was sent from first national / g e money, with a x in the optional box (no signature to confirm i needed or wanted the ppi) so this agreement obviously came from FN/ GE and it was them that marked the agreement for ppi , and its obvious that FN / GE were to gain financially by me having the ppi - so I will be stating the correlation between these organisations

dunstonh

gettinglifeback wrote: »

Thanks again bodoni for taking the time to reply, some poster are to quick to try and prove themselves as authority rather then help someone seeking answers who are new to this whole ppi lark, even though I used a broker I am still going to send the complaint to pinnacle(underwriters) as the credit agreement was sent from first national / g e money, with a x in the optional box (no signature to confirm i needed or wanted the ppi) so this agreement obviously came from FN/ GE and it was them that marked the agreement for ppi , and its obvious that FN / GE were to gain financially by me having the ppi - so I will be stating the correlation between these organisations

Are you saying that the PPI in your case was not supplied by a broker using a third party company but using the PPI offered with the lender?

That is a more unusual way of doing it but one where you could see success with the underwriter. Normally a broker would use an insurer that has no relationship with the lender (and the lender wouldnt get any remuneration for the insurance) What you are explaining in this post indicates that it is the lenders linked product that is being used. That link can make all the difference.

bodoni

Could I ask a question - perhaps this is an area where Dunston might be able to help?

I have read through insurance schedules and certificates relating to my complaint with Jubilee Holdings. In insurance terms (and excuse my ignorance) on both of the Certificates it says 'Effected through Bennett Gould & Partners limited' and in another place it has them as 'Scheme Managers'. Does this confirm that they were just administrators?

Thank you

gettinglifeback

dunstonh wrote: »

Are you saying that the PPI in your case was not supplied by a broker using a third party company but using the PPI offered with the lender?

That is a more unusual way of doing it but one where you could see success with the underwriter. Normally a broker would use an insurer that has no relationship with the lender (and the lender wouldnt get any remuneration for the insurance) What you are explaining in this post indicates that it is the lenders linked product that is being used. That link can make all the difference.

Hi dunstonh

Thanks for your input, Yes that is what did happen, the broker sought me the loan which was with FN/ GE, the agreement was sent to me for signature , I signed the agreement 22.1.03 and returned the agreement, It was returned to myself, a ppi section with (customers declaration) and the single cover box was marked with a X to indicate the cover, the agreement was also signed on behalf of FN on the 4.2.04, which was a dark inked signature - same as the X marked - so the marked X and signature from FN were marked after I signed and returned the agreement - They was never documents or a policy received from pinnacle