First Direct loan for DFS furniture Pre regulation ?

-taff

Unregulated lenders were brokers for the finance.

Banks and building societies subscribe to the GISC code prior to regulation so you are covered if you want to complaint to any of them.

The misselling of PPI is always the responsibility fo the seller, not the lender, there is no subcontracting in the sense you describe otherwise there would be a relationship between the two and you'd be covered if you wanted to complain.
DFS sold you the finance, DFS take resonsibility for the sale.It's the same for brokers who sold MPPI, car dealers etc.

pauln12

In my case DFS have taken the commission for the PPI and not the responsibility for miss selling it, because they were not regulated to do so.
If, as you say"the miss-selling of PPI is always the responsibility of the seller" how is that responsibility upheld in the case of DFS and other unregulated lenders and brokers.
In my case DFS have not sold the PPI to me "responsibly" but there is nothing I can do about it.
First Direct have been happy to allow this to happen, and have taken their share, so in my eyes there is a relationship between the two companies.

societys_child

in my eyes there is a relationship between the two companies

But not in law.

pauln12

No, not in law as you say. But it should be, if the banks are letting a third party sell their products, and that product, or the selling of it, is regulated when the bank sells it, then surely the third party selling the same product should also be regulated.
Or if the banks were signed up to a code of practise then any third parties selling their products should also be bound by the same code.
I know this is not the case, and now also know I am not going to get anywhere with this, apart from venting my frustration.

[Deleted User]

pauln12 wrote: »

But it should be,

Regulators agree with you, but have no powers prior to regulation in 2005.

Sorry.

-taff

pauln12 wrote: »

If, as you say"the miss-selling of PPI is always the responsibility of the seller" how is that responsibility upheld in the case of DFS and other unregulated lenders and brokers..

Sold after 2005 I'd imagine.

When they were regulated.

pauln12

"Sold after 2005 I'd imagine."
Taff, you had already stated earlier "DFS sold you the finance, DFS take resonsibility for the sale" This was pre 2005, so how are they taking responsibility for it ????

[Deleted User]

pauln12 wrote: »

"Sold after 2005 I'd imagine."
Taff, you had already stated earlier "DFS sold you the finance, DFS take resonsibility for the sale" This was pre 2005, so how are they taking responsibility for it ????

Understand that any complaint to DFS about insurance sold before January 2005 can and will be dismissed because the sale was not regulated.

After 2005, DFS (along with other insurance sellers) have to consider all complaints in line with the guidelines set by the regulator.

pauln12

"Understand that any complaint to DFS about insurance sold before January 2005 can and will be dismissed because the sale was not regulated.

After 2005, DFS (along with other insurance sellers) have to consider all complaints in line with the guidelines set by the regulator."

My original question has been answered and I know how it works, you seem to be repeating the same thing over and over.
I know my complaint is pre regulation, but Taff said "PPI is always ]the responsibility of the seller" Note the word "ALWAYS" to me that means pre 2005 as well.
I questioned how this responsibility is being upheld pre regulation.
Taff said (knowing the sale was pre 2005) "DFS take responsibility for the sale" I repeat again, they havern't because they don't have to.
Either they were responsible or not. If they were "responsible" in law pre 2005, thgen that responsibility should be upheld.
DFS should not dismiss complaint just because they were not regulated,
A truly "responsible" Company would take the responsibility seriously and investigate the complaint anyway.
But I know it ain;t gonna happen, so please don't keep trying to tell me they are the reponsible party.
From both your replies to me and on others on different threads I have looked at, I can't help wondering whether you both are, or were affiliated to the banks.

-taff

If you really want to misinterpret what I said, carry on.

I thought I was quite clear.

Responsibility lies with the seller.

DFS were regulated after 2005.

Pre 2005 they are still responsible for the sale.

They were not rgulated then


So they can dismiss your complaint.


Which they did,


Then you asked how come they upheld some....So I answered, because the PPI was probably sold after 2005 and they were regulated then and could not dismiss the complaint.