We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Long time ago....
Options
Comments
-
As far as regulation in 2003 there was regulation with the Consumer Credit Act at least. loans .co uk were acting as brokers, MBNA were the company that were regulated, now GE Money.
The seller has the liability for the complaint. i.e. the broker. The lender only has liability if the seller is an employee/agent of theirs. The consumer credit act does not give access to the FOS.
Have the FOS actually looked at the case yet or is it sitting in a waiting list to be looked at?I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
The seller has the liability for the complaint. i.e. the broker. The lender only has liability if the seller is an employee/agent of theirs. The consumer credit act does not give access to the FOS.
Have the FOS actually looked at the case yet or is it sitting in a waiting list to be looked at?
I appreciate the FOS can't look into 'unregulated' companies, but the seller was very much working with the agent as a means to source leads, whether this will hold up I don't know.
FOS tell me they have 'looked' at the case in so far as to see if it's sitting in the right department (22 months), it is, but they added as it was a dual loan ie the wife and I, 'It was not the norm'
They have not stated that it for reasons we have discussed it will be 'thrown out'.0 -
They haven't stated that it will be upheld either.They have not stated that it for reasons we have discussed it will be 'thrown out'.
If I were you, I'd expect nothing from this and then you won't be disappointed…
You certainly are, one's you can provide no proof of.I am not making allegations0 -
Moneyineptitude wrote: »They haven't stated that it will be upheld either.
If I were you, I'd expect nothing from this and then you won't be disappointed…
You certainly are, one's you can provide no proof of.
You seem a tad confrontational I am not as I have previously stated not holding out too much at all, sort of a realist by nature.
As far as providing no proof well that's correct I doubt if anyone could get written proof that was the case, that's why I guess there are Forums like this and folk like you that exist.
However the odds seem favourable that I won't get anything in your book, so what odds would you lay on me?
0 -
The point is that plenty of people (myself included) do provide documentary proof of mis-selling in their complaints. These are the ones which get upheld and rightly so.As far as providing no proof well that's correct I doubt if anyone could get written proof that was the case, that's why I guess there are Forums like this and folk like you that exist.
You on the other hand, have presented a weak "hearsay" complaint to the Ombudsman which has already been rejected by the Bank. You are also confusing the Consumer Credit Act with regulation of insurance sales.
Anyway, I'll leave it there...0 -
You are posting about GE Money and Loans.co.uk, neither are a bank. The commission a broker receives has been clearly disclosed on the Key Facts document since insurance became regulated 9 years ago. It's not relevent and nothing to do with mis-selling PPI! And what has Gordon Brown got to do with PPI? I do not recall him mis-selling any policies to folk.Oh! it is relevant, it was why the Banks lost the trust of the people, and just where is Gordon Brown these days?
0 -
The OP seems to be facing a number of obstacles.
The first is establishing who SOLD the policy. Probably loans.co.uk
If so, then that is who must answer any complaint. It still exists and is still authorised by the FCA.
FOS has jurisdiction over it in respect of mortgages from 31 October 2004 and in respect of general insurance from 14 January 2005.
Prior to that, it will depend on whether it subscribed to the General Insurance Standards Council's code of practice or not. If it did not then FOS has no jurisdiction. I do not know if it did or not.
As others have said, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 does not give you the right to go to FOS. The Consumer Credit Act 2006 gives the right in respect of events from 6 April 2007 but PPI had already been regulated for over a year by then.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards