Old PPI Claim - dead end?

michie_moo

Hi everyone,

This is my first post in a while so apologies if it is in the wrong place or anything......anyway.......

Anyway, my hubby initially took out a loan back in 1989 / 90 although it was ongoing and topped up several times over the next 10 years. If memory serves me right, we paid via a settlement figure back in 2003.
We have contacted the loan company who archive everything after 6 years and said they are unable to help us further unless we can provide an Agreement Number. So, we have made contact with my husbands (then) bank who also are unable to find anything on their systems as it was so long ago.
Is there ANYTHING that we can do? He was definitely mis-sold PPI and I really feel this is worth pushing for but not sure which direction to push in at the moment. Anyone? :huh:

McKneff

Absolutley nothing.

If they have no details and you have no details, it is a dead end.

What makes you so sure it was miss sold.

-taff

you send a SAR and £10 to whoever sold you the loans, see the front page for a sticky. This will onyl show you the info left though and may come bakc with nothing.

Also, unless it was a large bank, probably no-on else would have been regulated, so who sold it?

michie_moo

McKneff wrote: »

Absolutley nothing.

If they have no details and you have no details, it is a dead end.

What makes you so sure it was miss sold.

But there just has to be a way - surely?

Hubbys 'status' at the time made it invalid despite being sold it x

michie_moo

-taff wrote: »

you send a SAR and £10 to whoever sold you the loans, see the front page for a sticky. This will onyl show you the info left though and may come bakc with nothing.

Also, unless it was a large bank, probably no-on else would have been regulated, so who sold it?

I've been reading about these SAR's.... it was Black Horse x

magpiecottage

I think you are going to find this extremely difficult.

First of all, on receipt of a DSAR, a data controller (in this case the lender) only has to give you personal data held in a "relevant filing system".

That means that a reasonably competent clerk without specialist knowledge of its systems might be able to find using the information you have provided.

Thus, if it has archives in account number order then without the account number they cannot find it.

It might, of course, be that the account number incorporated some kind of code that would enable somebody with knowledge of that code to track your data down - but that would be specialised knowledge and they are not required to release it.

So what you have been told so far is that there is no information held in filing systems to which the information you have provided is relevant.

If you provide an account number then that would make one or more othe filing systems relevant.

They are not required to trawl through all their data on the off chance that there might be something somewhere, though.

Having done that, you would then have to prove that the policy really existed and who was responsible for selling you the policy. With a financce house like black horse, this was often neither the lender nor the insurer but whoever sold you the goods the loan was used to purchase.

You then need to prove that FOS has jurisdiction. For that to occur, the seller must still be in existence AND submit to FOS jurisdiction over events that long ago.

Whilst Lloyds Bank, the parent company, was a member of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, Black Horse was not a bank and, as far as I am aware, not subject to the jurisdiction of any ombudsman scheme at the time. If it was sold by an independent firm it is virtually certain FOS has no jurisdiction.

If, and only if, you get over those hurdles you can then set about demonstrating a missale.

Not what you want to hear, but I suspect it is what you need to hear.