PPI Reclaims not covered by the FOS

di3004

shamrock7 wrote: »

Well another update and the plot thickens. If I'm right about this it sounds like The FOS are really sorting out this we are not regulated excuse. I got another final response today after pestering Welcome with 2 more cutting letters.
I got a phonecall from a lovely girl at The FOS today after basically giving up hope yesterday. Here is the story: They asked me for both the underwriter-Aviva and the broker-Direct Group about 4 weeks ago. They pursued the underwriter first and got a we having nothing on file response.
Then they pursued the Broker who said it is the loan company Welcome who sold the policy so nothing to do with us. I thought this would be the brick wall and that I could only now take this to court. However...the girl has informed me that regardless of the regulation, because the complaint has gone through this process of underwriter/Broker, Welcome can now be held responsible and they will get an adjudicator to follow it up.
They will ask Welcome for the file after pursuing Aviva again as they are not happy with getting the runaround.Does this sound right? It feels too good to be true. If so I could finally be on to a winner. Its like a rollercoaster!

Shamrock, this is finally looking hopefull.......well done.....:T, will keep my fingers crossed and of course one of those are responsible and they will try anything to get out of it.
So happy now though to hear that the FOS are pushing on this, great news Shamrock and this will give many others on here hope as well.:beer:

PaulinWeston

Hi All
Thought I’d bring you all up to date on my claim against a mis sold PPI policy that I was ‘forced’ to buy when I took out a car loan.

Well I now have an amended defence from the solicitors. They’re now NOT going with the ‘time barring’ defence (because I got that one struck out) but now they are saying that they were responsible for the credit agreement only – not the PPI. They maintain that the PPI was ‘optional’ and in any case: they have no direct knowledge or control over the activities of the sales staff employed by, or otherwise working for the Supplier and the events occurring at the point of sale.

It’s really frustrating because they didn’t say any of this in their correspondence before the claim was submitted – so it seems that they might be clutching at straws – but I’ve already learnt (in my very limited dealings with the British legal system) – that things aren’t as clear cut as they should be!

Unfortunately, they have also applied to have the case heard through the multi-track route, rather than the small-claims route. If the court allows this it means that I have to pay a £1,000 hearing fee (instead of a £100 fee).

I’ll let you know how things go.

di3004

PaulinWeston wrote: »

Hi All
Thought I’d bring you all up to date on my claim against a mis sold PPI policy that I was ‘forced’ to buy when I took out a car loan.

Well I now have an amended defence from the solicitors. They’re now NOT going with the ‘time barring’ defence (because I got that one struck out) but now they are saying that they were responsible for the credit agreement only – not the PPI. They maintain that the PPI was ‘optional’ and in any case: they have no direct knowledge or control over the activities of the sales staff employed by, or otherwise working for the Supplier and the events occurring at the point of sale.

It’s really frustrating because they didn’t say any of this in their correspondence before the claim was submitted – so it seems that they might be clutching at straws – but I’ve already learnt (in my very limited dealings with the British legal system) – that things aren’t as clear cut as they should be!

Unfortunately, they have also applied to have the case heard through the multi-track route, rather than the small-claims route. If the court allows this it means that I have to pay a £1,000 hearing fee (instead of a £100 fee).

I’ll let you know how things go.

Hi there
Hope your well.

Thanks for the update on your case, and good luck.;)

stereo_mike

PaulinWeston wrote: »

Hi All
Thought I’d bring you all up to date on my claim against a mis sold PPI policy that I was ‘forced’ to buy when I took out a car loan.

Well I now have an amended defence from the solicitors. They’re now NOT going with the ‘time barring’ defence (because I got that one struck out) but now they are saying that they were responsible for the credit agreement only – not the PPI. They maintain that the PPI was ‘optional’ and in any case: they have no direct knowledge or control over the activities of the sales staff employed by, or otherwise working for the Supplier and the events occurring at the point of sale.

It’s really frustrating because they didn’t say any of this in their correspondence before the claim was submitted – so it seems that they might be clutching at straws – but I’ve already learnt (in my very limited dealings with the British legal system) – that things aren’t as clear cut as they should be!

Unfortunately, they have also applied to have the case heard through the multi-track route, rather than the small-claims route. If the court allows this it means that I have to pay a £1,000 hearing fee (instead of a £100 fee).

I’ll let you know how things go.

Is your claim in total for over £5,000??

They are pursuing this route as they will be able to claim their costs back if they win, also they may have found some ruling or law which will help their case, and will have a greater weighting on a multi-track route rather than in the small claims court.

Do you have insurance to cover their legal costs if you lose??

PaulinWeston

stereo_mike wrote: »

Is your claim in total for over £5,000??

They are pursuing this route as they will be able to claim their costs back if they win, also they may have found some ruling or law which will help their case, and will have a greater weighting on a multi-track route rather than in the small claims court.

Do you have insurance to cover their legal costs if you lose??

The claim is for £500 - the reason they are trying to have it allocated to the multi track is simply because (IMHO) they want to deter me from progressing because I will have to stump up the hearing fee (although if it goes into multi or fast track I can get representation under a CFA - so all is not lost)

The "point of law" they are arguing is that, under the CCA section 56 (1)b, they act as a fudiciary for the goods sold (i.e the car) - not the PPI that was sold alongside it.

marshallka

Good luck with this then.

shamrock7

Hi Guys on Welcome Forum. This is where I've detailed all posts up to now.

boring_2

:mad:[EMAIL="humilty6@googlemail.com"]humilty6@googlemail.com[/EMAIL]
CREDIT CARD PPI
Thanks to the previous post's, that have motivated me to take action.

If I am in the wrong place please re direct me, AM I WRONG TO BE ANGRY, :mad:AND FEELING AN IDIOT
I am now retired.
In 1998 I took out a credit card with **** bank, in Feb this year my account was transfered to *****, which is part of the same company, my cedit limit was £2000, in all that time to date, I have not been in arrears, I have paid it by direct debit for 11 years as I never had the cash to settle,I cant beleive I did it.
Last week I called the CARD company and said that I cant pay £60 per month now, and could they freize the interest, and pay less, I was told, sorry we cant freeze the interest, but they may be able to give me lower rate and sent me a form so as to list all my out goings.and say what I can afford to pay.
£2000 card loan, and paying insurance I was told I would have to have, and no mention that I could get my insurance elsewhere neither. still have £1900 debt on the card and have made payments to approx £7500 and still owe ££££££s.

BINGO I answered the telephone last friday to hear a recorded message YOU CAN CLAIM for miss sold ppi, for loads of reasons, realising I more than qualify here I am , a company told me that he could get my PPI insurance back and a lot more, but did not mention any cost.
NOW
I cant find my agreement
the card company asked if I would like to cancel my Insurance, I SAID NOT JUST NOW
I asked her to confirm that I have allways had PPI from commencement, she hedged she cant see those details, I told her she must have that information as I am still a customer, she puffed and said "let me look", 20 seconds and she said since the start, Nov 1998, I nearly had a heart attack.
I think I want to pursue it myself, I feel it is now war. GREEDY PIGS.
If a reader of this can encourage me, it would be great, I may be 67 but I am not dead yet.
Any Idea how much I could get would be good, I understand it is all what if.
By the way I live in the South of UK
Kind Regards
Boring

margymuggins

jimthediver wrote: »

I complained to First National Motor Finance - a trading style of GE Money Home Finance ltd (they have been fined by the FOS as per the front screen of the PPI article) and was fobbed off in the same manner as it seems most of us have been - not regulated at the time of the policies sale :mad:

So I did a bit of digging.

The Finance & Leasing Association (FLA) have a dispute resoloution service.
This can be utilised by anyone who has a complaint against a current or past FLA member, which convieniently enough GE Money have been a member of since 1992. Nice that when the wrote to me telling me the FOS has no jurisidcition over my complaint they omitted to mention the alternative!!

The FLA can be contacted on 020 7836 6511. They can tell you if they company was or is a member.

The FLA also operate an online complaints form:

https://www.fla.org.uk/fla/complaints/index.jsp

The form is much the same as the FOS one that we have all submitted with great care I'm certain. Copy and paste the relevant sections of your complaint onto it and you can then email it off to the FLA who, in my case, responded within 2 days.

I am still awaiting a result from the FLA - it has only been a week now - but I hope that this is of some use to everyone else.

To the MSE team - I don't know if there are rules on putting hyperlinks on the posts that don't get the site any cash. If there are, I'm sorry to breach them, please let me know if I can include it in such a way that the best wesbite on the internet benefits.

Good Luck - Jim:beer:

Hi so glad someone else is fighting the same i recently had letter from g.e.money stating they have not been fined and have mentioned Cardiff Pinacle whom the insurance was with which First National Home Finance arranged then it became G.E.Money now they say we should have read the finer details to which we did not at the time so basically its our fault cos we signed the dotted line and are not in a position to consider the policy refund and this is their final response also due to historical nature it does not come under the F.O.S but does mention FLA perhaps you could enlighten me more as you seem to be the only one fight the same as myself sorry for going on but i may have been given hope to carry on if you care to keep in touch thanx for this Margy p;s not very clever an
G:D:DD LUCK with yours

tiggrae

PaulinWeston wrote: »

The claim is for £500 - the reason they are trying to have it allocated to the multi track is simply because (IMHO) they want to deter me from progressing because I will have to stump up the hearing fee (although if it goes into multi or fast track I can get representation under a CFA - so all is not lost)

The "point of law" they are arguing is that, under the CCA section 56 (1)b, they act as a fudiciary for the goods sold (i.e the car) - not the PPI that was sold alongside it.

did you take the loan company to court or the broker / garage who sold you the loan / ppi?