PPI - from 2003

MarkyD74

Hello,

Had PPI on car finance in 2003 with Black Horse finance, I've sent a letter off today I have photcopies of the PPI form amount even my direct debit....Can I claim this back? It was piad off in 2-3 years after 2003.

Many thanks
Mark

Nasqueron

You can complain but you need to complain to the car dealer as they sold it, Black Horse have no liability for the sale unless their rep sold it to you - if it was the dealer that sold it then they'll dismiss it as pre-regulation

robin-hood1

Black Horse have complaint jurisdiction from December 2001 to March 2003. If your finance was outside these dates then send your complaint to Lloyds Bank General Insurance in Newport . They were the insurer and have responsibility for the complaint when Black Horse is out of jurisdiction.
The response wilk still come from Black Horse and I have a feeling in my water that you will be pleasantly surprised. If not, definitely go to FOS and you will most certainly get an uphold.

magpiecottage

There is a 75% chance that a loan taken out in 2003 dates from beyond March of that year. In addition, in the first instance, as Nasqueron says, it is the dealer that is primarily responsible, not the lender.

So unless it can be shown that the lender was responsible for the sale of the PPI, the case would fail.

Worth looking at, perhaps, but the odds seem to be against the OP.

Nasqueron

robin-hood1 is going through old posts and bumping them to offer his "advice"

[Deleted User]

Nasqueron wrote: »

robin-hood1is going through old posts and bumping them to offer his "advice"

Yes, in the hope that he'll build enough posts so that he can send and receive personal messages and thereby sell his services.

We're watching you, robin-hood1:(

good-samaritan

You guys have destroyed my faith in human nature and I just lost a bet. Somebody tries to do a good deed and you shoot him down in flames. If he walked around handing out £50 notes to the needy, you would be praising him. When he gives out highly precise intelligence so that people who would never be able to succeed with a claim can now do so, he is a pariah! Yes I do know who he is - he told me he was going to do good deeds on here and that nobody would ever believe it and he was right. Now you will be watching the good samaritan as well as robin hood. Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy can exist - you just have to believe!!! PS. thanks for the heads up on how you guys think - my private messaging is now switched well and truly off.
So if you ever wish to apologise, you will have to do it via forum post.

good-samaritan

Oh and one last thing for magpiecottage.
You would be surprised at how many pre-reg Black Horse garage sales were not actually made by the seller as the purchaser may recall but were in fact introduced to Black Horse so that BH carry the can. Even sales that were actually made by the seller can still elicit redress - I am sure that you will have heard of BH paying the premiums and the dealership paying the interest as split redress.
This most important thing about BH cases is to have the account number (which is also the Direct Debit ref). Without the account number, BH will say that they cannot locate you if your finance ended more than 6 years ago BUT this does not mean that they do not have your records which are actually held in archives back to the early 1980's. What they mean is that without the account number, they cannot retrieve your records from the archive so they will not run your complaint.
I know, it is a scandal - every other firm can find a client by name, date of birth, previous addresses etc but BH cannot. No account number - no claim. This is so wrong !!!
So older cases with account numbers (or proof of PPI) are like gold dust - MarkyD74 should be praised for his diligence with record keeping and put his complaint in asap.

Nasqueron

Making things up and giving false hope to people isn't really the behaviour one would expect of a "good Samaritan" - pre-regulation means just that - the sale was before the regulation started, the sale was thus not regulated, thus the regulations after 2005 do not apply - BlackHorse provided finance, they did not sell PPI (the issue, of course, is the miss-SALE of PPI) - trying to get them to take responsibility is the last desperate straw clutch but they are not responsible for the sale unless the dealership staff member was their employee.

good-samaritan

Posting wrong advice to consumers in chat rooms is also not what I would expect of a consumer champion. I take particular offence at your statement of "making things up" - that sounds pretty libelous and defamatory to me!

If what you say is true, that would mean that nobody could ever reclaim PPI from a firm before 14 Jan 2005 - which is when regulation started. But we all know that firms are paying out from before 2005 - so how can that be if they are pre-regulation and the regulations do not apply?

I think you are mistaking "regulation" and "jurisdiction" which are two completely different things. Regulation means that the seller has to be authorised by the Financial Regulator to sell PPI - so after Jan 2005 this was the over-riding factor. Jurisdiction means that the firm has an obligation to answer a complaint and the complaint can be sent to FOS - in other words, they have to respond with FOS rights. Many, many unregulated firms were in jurisdiction before 2005 because they were members of recognised complaint handling schemes - some voluntary and some compulsory. These complaint handling schemes go back to the 1960's for some banks and building societies which is why they still have to payout pre-reg! So if you know that a firm is in jurisdiction for complaint handling (even though unregulated before 2005), you can still complain and go to the FOS if not happy with the response - provided you are not time barred (which fortunately is quite rare with PPI).

Your second point is also incorrect about the staff member having to be a BH employee. If there was any agency relationship between the insurer-lender-seller, then the first person in the chain carries the can for the complaint. So even if the seller was a garage employee and not employed by the lender or insurer, the agency relationship supersedes this and renders the principal liable. In FOS language, the seller "stands in the shoes of" the lender and means the lender carries the point of sale responsibility. This can also extend back to the insurer if the agency does the same. This principle was reinforced in the famous Plevin decision where the judge ruled that nothing trumps the principle of agency.

Does this help - I really am not on here to fight you but I am happy if I can educate you so consumers that may have valid complaints are not deterred from doing so by incorrect postings.

[Deleted User]

Good-Samaritan = robin-hood1 I think.

Do not feed.