Long time ago....

25OR624

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

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.

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...

Not hearsay at all, all the original documents I have, gained from GE Money, and forwarded to FOS, and surprise surprise the 'Bank' (GE Money) rejected my claim, hardly original action from a lender.

NO! I not confusing the CCA with anything, I merely stated that was that at the time, I was merely being straight forward about the situation.

Anyway thank you for you input, if that is the last comment by you, even if it was a bit too patronising.

25OR624

roonaldo wrote: »

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.

'Light Touch' regarding regulations as to such matters and is why we are here to-day with the Banks having set aside millions for repayment, that's a starter regarding Brown, I am sure if you think about it you might come up with a few more.

All roads lead to the Banks, be it GE money loans .co.uk pay day loans sharks the whole shabang.

25OR624

magpiecottage wrote: »

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.

Thank you for taking time to reply, some good points raised, none of which feel me with confidence I will have a bit of a dig around and see what I can find out)

Loans.co.uk were the broker to MBNA who provided the loan, now GE Money.

[Deleted User]

25OR624 wrote: »

Not hearsay at all

You state that you were told that PPI had to be taken, since you cannot prove this conversation ever took place this is "hearsay".

Your documentation is not evidence of mis-selling-just proof that you had this finance and who with.

I wish you would stop talking in absolutes.

Denying that you have a hearsay complaint and that you are making allegations when you clearly are does not help your complaint either.

Are you sure you are not being argumentative here on the forum just for the sake of it?

25OR624

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

You state that you were told that PPI had to be taken, since you cannot prove this conversation ever took place this is "hearsay".

Your documentation is not evidence of mis-selling-just proof that you had this finance and who with.

I wish you would stop talking in absolutes.

Denying that you have a hearsay complaint and that you are making allegations when you clearly are does not help your complaint either.

Are you sure you are not being argumentative here on the forum just for the sake of it?

Oh Dear!

Clearly you are an absolute dog with a bone with this one, I think you have done the hearsay thing to death, your term hearsay, I just told it as it was.

[Deleted User]

25OR624 wrote: »

your term hearsay

Not "my" term at all

25OR624 wrote: »

I just told it as it was.

Yet another absolute?

-taff

25OR624 wrote: »

Loans.co.uk were the broker to MBNA who provided the loan, now GE Money.

The lender is not responsible for the sale unless the seller [loans.co.uk] were acting as agents for them.
It is the seller who has responsibility for the sale.

magpiecottage

-taff wrote: »

The lender is not responsible for the sale unless the seller [loans.co.uk] were acting as agents for them.
It is the seller who has responsibility for the sale.

That is correct.

loans.co.uk is part of MBNA, I believe but it would depend on the historical regulatory status of loans.co.uk - not MBNA.

That is why some Santander accounts can be considered right back to the 1980s whilst others can only go back to 2005.

25OR624

-taff wrote: »

The lender is not responsible for the sale unless the seller [loans.co.uk] were acting as agents for them.
It is the seller who has responsibility for the sale.

In this case loans.co.uk had the status of broker for MBNA in my case at least, this has been confirmed by letter to me from the seller (now GE Money)

roonaldo

25OR624 wrote: »

In this case loans.co.uk had the status of broker for MBNA in my case at least, this has been confirmed by letter to me from the seller (now GE Money)

The broker is the seller. GE Money are only the lender of the money.