mmis selling admitted but lender claims broker has ceased trading?

dadoandrew

Hi all, This is a puzzler for me.
I am in middle of a ppi claim. I am dealing with the fscs as my lender claims the broker ceased trading many years ago. I am in process of reclaiming what ever percentage I may be eligible for. But my question is this: How am I still making monthly payments of the ppi to the lender First plus even though they admit that they are not the broker of the policy? I asked a rep on the phone but never got a straight answer.
I guess that others are and have been in the same boat, so any experiences shared would be a help/

dadoandrew

obviously the title is a bit of a typo, mis mot mmis, but I am sure none of the forum members are so anal that they would bring that up.

dunstonh

But my question is this: How am I still making monthly payments of the ppi to the lender First plus even though they admit that they are not the broker of the policy?

The broker is the person that arranges the policy/lending. Not the provider of the product. For example, I am an IFA. I am liable for the products I advise on. Yet I do not provide any products. That is the same as the broker.

dadoandrew

That actually does not provide me with an answer at all, it is obvious that you work in finance. lol
ok my question again is this: the lender has admitted that I had been missold ppi. then it tells me that the broker for the policy has ceased trading. I take it up with the fscs. But what I would really like to know is if the lender in this case first plus did not broker the ppi policy and the company that did has ceased trading, then how can first plus continue to take fees for a policy that it did not provide?

dadoandrew

Ah no sorry, I think I get it. It is all a con by the financial organisation. They sell you a policy that is useless then say it was not them but big boys did it and ran away.
So my policy which was missold to me for first plus but was not by first plus. lol. Even though First plus continue to take monthly payments from me for a policy that they say has no value. Ah marvellous. Who says crime doesnt not pay haha.

dadoandrew

So here is a further question regarding the broker of missold policy. at such time as the fscs rules, hopefully in my favour. will the lender desist in taking monthly payments for ppi?

dunstonh

ok my question again is this: the lender has admitted that I had been missold ppi. then it tells me that the broker for the policy has ceased trading.

The lender is not in a position to say whether something was mis-sold or not when they were not involved in the sale.

But what I would really like to know is if the lender in this case first plus did not broker the ppi policy and the company that did has ceased trading, then how can first plus continue to take fees for a policy that it did not provide?

The lender did not sell you the policy. The broker did.

Ah no sorry, I think I get it. It is all a con by the financial organisation. They sell you a policy that is useless then say it was not them but big boys did it and ran away.

The lender just got an application through the post. They do not know why or how you bought the product. Just that it was on the application. Hence why they have no liability. The retailer of the product (the broker) has the liability. This matches most areas of retail. Such as when a shop closes down. Except in this case you have the FSCS protection.

So my policy which was missold to me for first plus but was not by first plus.

It was not missold by first plus. You allege it was missold by the broker.

So here is a further question regarding the broker of missold policy. at such time as the fscs rules, hopefully in my favour. will the lender desist in taking monthly payments for ppi?

Depends on how the redress is paid. If you receive it cash, then you will continue to pay within the loan as the premium would have been paid in full at the start. However, they may use the redress and pay it into the loan to remove it from the loan and you receive nothing personally.

dadoandrew

So even although, in the event of a favourable outcome for me, I receive a payment from the mis sold policy, and please note I deliberately do not say alleged, then first plus will continue to benefit financially from me regarding a premium for a policy which they did not sell me? wow that really is low.

dadoandrew

I am sure that I am not alone in feeling that as the lender benefits considerably from the misspelling of these policies, then they should both feel liable and be held liable for the deliberate and underhand method in which they gather these premiums. Simply having another organisation used as broker is a clever and deceitful method of increasing their own profits.

dunstonh

So even although, in the event of a favourable outcome for me, I receive a payment from the mis sold policy, and please note I deliberately do not say alleged, then first plus will continue to benefit financially from me regarding a premium for a policy which they did not sell me? wow that really is low.

You get your money back once. You do not get it back twice.

I am sure that I am not alone in feeling that as the lender benefits considerably from the misspelling of these policies, then they should both feel liable and be held liable for the deliberate and underhand method in which they gather these premiums.

The issue is not the product. The issue is the advice and/or sales process. That is what you are complaining about. The product provider was not involved in that process. So, why should they be liable.

Simply having another organisation used as broker is a clever and deceitful method of increasing their own profits.

That is how retail works. You go into a shop. The shop sells the item. The shop has liability for that sale. If the shop sells the wrong product then you complain to the shop. Not the provider of the product.

Insider101

dadoandrew wrote: »

I am sure that I am not alone in feeling that as the lender benefits considerably from the misspelling of these policies, then they should both feel liable and be held liable for the deliberate and underhand method in which they gather these premiums. Simply having another organisation used as broker is a clever and deceitful method of increasing their own profits.

I think you're basically and fundamentally misunderstanding what a broker is. A broker is a completely independent company who is engaged by you to find you the best loan. In this instance, it appears that the best loan was the First Plus one. If anything has been done in an underhand manner, it was not by them but by the entirely separate broker. There are a number who have commented has you have but I is generally those who are frustrated that their broker has ceased to exist and are therefore just seeking someone to pin their frustration on.

As an aside, if you get your complaint upheld, you will not only receive a refund of what you have paid to date, but a lump sum to compensate you for the future PPI payments you still have to make on the First Plus loan. So you won't lose out on that front.