PPI - from 2003

Nasqueron

Not feeding, merely correcting obviously incorrect information, such as the fact this "consumer champion" doesn't understand the difference between finance products from banks and other lenders who were part of earlier regulatory bodies which have to consider pre-2005 complaints and providers like brokers and car dealerships who were not, thus don't.

A car dealer sells a PPI, the dealer works for the dealership or the car company, the fact they used say BlackHorse for finance doesn't automatically make BlackHorse responsible for PPI complaints when they did not sell anything (again, RH/GS is confused about the issue being miss-SELLING). Not sure why he/she is even bothering, PPI is largely done and dusted with the time limit now in place and all the major finance groups sending out the time-bar letters

[Deleted User]

good-samaritan wrote: »

my private messaging is now switched well and truly off.

You haven't made enough posts on the forum to be entitled to private messaging..

potter123

I previously had two loans with WF in 2003 one in april and one in July they confirmed that they had calculated that i should get £3300 back

However the letter also noted that Welcome Finance were unable to affect settlement of this and that i would need to wait until an administrator was appointed at which point i would be sent a form to make a claim, however i would not be guaranteed to get a payment.

I am a bit perturb that i may not end up getting anything back at all as my date seems to be between where aviva are taken responsibility and where the fscs are taking responsibility. Can you please advise what the next stage of the process is whether i need to just sit and wait for this to be process to take place or if i should contact the likes of Aviva or the ombudsman

[Deleted User]

potter123 wrote: »

However the letter also noted that Welcome Finance were unable to affect settlement of this and that i would need to wait until an administrator was appointed at which point i would be sent a form to make a claim, however i would not be guaranteed to get a payment.

Already answered on your duplicate thread yesterday..
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70359541#Comment_70359541

Mersey_2

Ha oh don't mention Martin Lewis on this site. Moneyineptitude has admitted they have a problem with him.


I used to think Nasqueron & Dunstonh were being pedantic in repeating those lines re pre-regulation and so on.


They are, of course, correct technically; but so are you (good-samaritan) in that the reality is that financial instructions are currently repaying PPI on store cards and so on from the past 25 years in some cases.

magpiecottage

good-samaritan wrote: »

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

Actually, Black Horse is a different legal entity to Lloyds Bank - although part of the same group. It was not member of the old Banking Ombudsman scheme. So FOS only has jurisdiction over part of the period before 2005 when it volunteed jurisdiction.


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.[/quote]This is not true. In the 1980s the insurance company I worked for held all its records in microfiche. They were held by account number only. They had a mainframce computer with dumb terminals which could be used to look up account numbers. We could then order the microfiche for each account. With the advent of modern networks, all live accounts were migrated but dead ones were not (the old Data Protection Act dictated that they should not be).

Somewhere, those microfiche may still exist but they will still only be held by account number.

Some years later, whilst working for a different insurance company, I had some dealings with Lloyds TSB and had so do some analytical work. As I recall, I was provided with printouts which were from the same system.

good-samaritan wrote: »

MarkyD74 should be praised for his diligence with record keeping and put his complaint in asap.

I did not say he should not - simply that the odds of winning do not currently look that high.

magpiecottage

Placida wrote: »

What time limit do you refer to?

Has the deadline rule, the communications campaign fee rule, and the rules and guidance concerning PPI complaints and Plevin, actually come into force?
So shouldn’t the deadline fall two years after that date, meaning some time in 2018?

Strictly, it is for the FCA to decide. In theory it could say tomorrow. In practice, it has indicated that it will be two years.

That will start when all the talking has finished. Initially, this was thought that the clock would start ticking in April 2016 but I think that is likely to slip - probably by six months or more, That is just my opininion, though and if you do think you have grounds for complaint you should do so now rather than later.

Placida wrote: »

Isn’t there to be a campaign to inform consumers about the time limit that would be funded by banks who missold the insurance? Has that communications campaign actually started?

There is indeed to be such a campaign. However, it has not

Placida wrote: »

II would have thought that someone who posts regularly on this forum would know the correct term/spelling is mis selling not miss-selling.

If you look at the FCA website, you will find "miss-selling", "mis-selling" or "miss selling" used. So any of these terms seem to be correct. However I have not found "mis selling" there.

magpiecottage

potter123 wrote: »

I previously had two loans with WF in 2003 one in april and one in July they confirmed that they had calculated that i should get £3300 back

You should really start your own thread for a question but in answer to your question, it sounds like Welcome Finance has accepted responsibility for the sale.

potter123 wrote: »

However the letter also noted that Welcome Finance were unable to affect settlement of this and that i would need to wait until an administrator was appointed at which point i would be sent a form to make a claim, however i would not be guaranteed to get a payment.

This means that, although they think they owe you £3,300, they have gone bust - so they do not have enough money to pay it. Eventually an adminstrator will be appointed and they will first use any money available to pay themselves (naturally) and distribute what is left in accordance with how much people are owed. So if, for example, they owe ten times as much as the amount owed, everybody would get one tenth of the amount they were due. If that were the case, you would get £330.

This is not entirely accurate as there can be certain debts which take priority and other costs to meet but it give a broad idea.

potter123 wrote: »

Can you please advise what the next stage of the process is whether i need to just sit and wait for this to be process to take place or if i should contact the likes of Aviva or the ombudsman

There is no point in contacting the FSCS about something that happened in 2003 as it cannot make an award in respect of the sale of an insurance policy before 2005.

The Financial Ombudsman Service could theoretically make an award but only if Welcome Finance submitted to its jurisdiction in 2003 - and if Welcome Finance has no resources to meet the award you would be no further forward. All you would have achieved is to incur further costs to Welcome Finance thus reducing the eventual payouts for everybody.

You could try complaining to Aviva but the fact that Welcome Finance has accepted that it was responsible suggests that Aviva has a defence.

Placida

magpiecottage wrote: »

Strictly, it is for the FCA to decide. In theory it could say tomorrow. In practice, it has indicated that it will be two years.

Totally agree. My issue is with the statement "the time limit now in place”. I consider it to be misleading and factually incorrect.

magpiecottage wrote: »

If you look at the FCA website, you will find "miss-selling", "mis-selling" or "miss selling" used. So any of these terms seem to be correct. However I have not found "mis selling" there.

Perhaps it might give that impression. I wasn’t aware that there is a prefix “miss-“.

Perhaps there is a Miss Selling on The FCA website??

societys_child

Perhaps there is a Miss Selling on The FCA website??

I don't think she works there any more* . . .





*or should that be any-more