Claim company asking payment

dunstonh

Alpine_Star wrote: »

It doesn't matter. The LoA only permits them to look at accounts for which she is a joint holder.

It does matter because the wording on all the documents matters. The contract itself is the key one. The LOA is largely irrelevant if it is standalone as you say it is.

Alpine_Star

Nah. The LoA governs the extent to which the contract applies.

adam_thedon

Cjames wrote: »

I had a claim company hyc look into my finances to see if I had any claims under my name. My wife's names was added in a box specifically saying add if joint account holder and she signed as 2nd as well.
We received a letter from them and from north rock that she had an individeal loan under he name that was entitles to a refund.
My wife only included her name on the form as joint account holder basis on morages and loans that we jointly held.
They are now aggressively asking her to follow through with her claim that she does not want to complete and she never agreed to looking into. (I had none by the way)
But as she is only signed with hyc as a joint account holder on the agreement they say that she signed for them to look at all her finances and make claims with them.
Can anyone help or give me some advice as I did not plan on looking into her personal finances and we checked the document thoroughly and she only filled in the box that said "only complete if joint account"

Thanks

Depends what was signed. If she signed the letter of authority as well then unfortunately she'll be liable to make payment. Putting her name on as a secondary product holder on the fosq for example doesn't mean squat for a cmc but both signing the loa means she's liable

Alpine_Star

adam_thedon wrote: »

Depends what was signed. If she signed the letter of authority as well then unfortunately she'll be liable to make payment. Putting her name on as a secondary product holder on the fosq for example doesn't mean squat for a cmc but both signing the loa means she's liable

You have misunderstood the OP's post.

Cjames_2

Can't post any images otherwise I'd show u what she sigbed.

Nasqueron

Cjames wrote: »

Can't post any images otherwise I'd show u what she sigbed.

Upload to a free site like tiny pics and then post the link here and remove the full address so instead of http:// change it to h x x x : / / and then you can post it

Cjames_2

There is a contrace she signed with terms of service as second applicant again. Bit the loa still says that the "second applicant(only complete if joint account)" otherwise she would not have signed it

Cjames_2

h.....tp://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0YSErg4hrejbDJwMTh5d2VCWVk/view?usp=drivesdk

h....tp://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0YSErg4hrejUXg2TGxWdzB0cWc/view?usp=drivesdk

Just fill in the missing bit

dunstonh

The LOA states my/our and I/We throughout. The signature box is main applicant and 2nd applicant.

So, the LOA seems to indicate that it can look at sole and joint. The contract seems to be the same.

On that basis, the bank receiving those would look at sole and joint accounts and as both contract and LOA are signed as 2nd applicant, they are correct to bill on the redress on sole accounts.

Alpine_Star

The second applicant signatory box clearly states ''2nd applicant (only compete if joint account)''.


If they are saying that they can look at all her finances and make claims with them she has clearly not given them the necessary authority to do so.