PPI Reclaims not covered by the FOS

LAINEY81

amersall wrote: »

Who are the insurance company?.

insurance company is Genworth but I've never received 1 piece of paperwork from this company so I have no details???

Should I have if I paid them £2,500 for PPI???

amersall

LAINEY81 wrote: »

insurance company is Genworth but I've never received 1 piece of paperwork from this company so I have no details???

Should I have if I paid them £2,500 for PPI???

Have you contact details for these?,if you have then ring them and ask if they can find you.

shedstarr

All three companies listed as under writers for the policy have now given final responses and re-directed me back to YCC. I have today sent all paperwork to FOS and will let you know what happens....not as confident as I was at the beginning though.

arthurp8

I wonder if anyone can offer me some advice.
I have a loan brokered by Freedom Finance taken out in March 2004.
This was a loan with Firstplus with PPI

Freedom finance have gone bust, and were not regulated at the time.
As such where can I go with this claim?

I've tried unsuccessfully to pin down freedom (or Bespoke as they were known) while they were still trading but got rebuffed. Now they have gone belly up there is the option of the FSCS - however the policy falls before their jurisdiction does it not? As such am I simply meant to sit and not claim?

Any advice would be gratefully received - likewise if there is a particular claims handler that would be prepared to pursue this or that anyone can advise please let me know. Unfortunately I just don't know where to go with this.

Many thanks

Bob_II

First thing's first - don't go near a claims handler if you can help it!

I'm in a similar situation. My loan was 2002 through a broker that dissolved in 2006. Although the broker wasn't regulated at the time the underwriter was and I (and the FOS) seem to agree the insurer had a responsibility to ensure their approved resellers operated in the proper way.

In these cases the lender always seems to be exempt from any blame which makes the whole thing more complicated if your lender, broker and insurer were all different entities.

If I were you, based on the details you've provided, I'd file a complaint with the FOS against the insurer. If you speak to the FOS they will probably suggest that anyway. Be prepared for a long wait for an outcome though. I've been waiting about a year since starting my case and got a letter only yesterday saying it might be another 6 months before the FOS will be able to look at it.

Good luck in any case. You're not alone!

LAINEY81

I'm now in the process of filing a complaint against my insurer aswell. Expecting a long wait! Insurer is genworth. Anyone else had money back from them?

Thanks

Bob_II

My insurer/underwriter was Cardif Pinnacle (as it was for many others I've heard). I also heard a rumour that the FOS were compiling a case against the insurance industry to tackle the PPI underwriter issue. I, and I'm sure many others, have subscribed to the conspiracy theory that the big insurers outsourced the sale of PPI to third parties because they knew what was to come. It seems very convenient how many of the brokers involved in the scandal have since disappeared. Of course not everyone will agree and be as sceptical as me that this situation was no accident. I'm hoping there will be a high court ruling similar to the banking industry one in the not too distant future and that will force responsibility on to the insurers. The FSCS seems completely useless in these cases so someone (hopefully the FOS) will get some justice for the rest us caught out in this way. I'd gladly accept my compensation minus the brokers original commission actually, because the insurer will have received most out of the deal, that much you can guarantee!

dunstonh

I also heard a rumour that the FOS were compiling a case against the insurance industry to tackle the PPI underwriter issue. I, and I'm sure many others, have subscribed to the conspiracy theory that the big insurers outsourced the sale of PPI to third parties because they knew what was to come.

The legal structure and FSA rules (and predecessor regulators) are the most logical reason why. Not some unknown event that largely exists because the FSA made a pigs ear of it.

It seems very convenient how many of the brokers involved in the scandal have since disappeared.

That happened in the past and could have been foreseen. i.e. when FIMBRA went and those firms that didnt go on to be PIA regulated (now FSA) were able to dump the liability.

Hence why I suspect that any hypothetical opinion the FOS may have will be a waste of time. That assumes the rumour is correct. I suspect it is not as the FOS is not a regulator. They pass information on to the regulator. My understanding is that the FOS check to see if there was an agent relationship or not and have checked to verify some of the responses to make sure that is actually the case but go no further than that.

I'm hoping there will be a high court ruling similar to the banking industry one in the not too distant future

The banks only lost one case and that was where they didnt want the FSA to apply retrospective rules to legacy cases. The ruling said the FSA was allowed to do it. However, what you are asking for is seeing that the legal liability (not some internal guidelines) is transferred from one company to another. You cannot see how that could succeed in law at all.

The FSCS seems completely useless in these cases so someone (hopefully the FOS) will get some justice for the rest us caught out in this way.

The FSCS is funded by companies paying FSCS levies. It would be totally wrong for companies that have no paid FSCS levies year in year out to then have to pay for companies that never paid towards the scheme.

Bob_II

Well, if I had the time and the inclination I'd clarify my previous thoughts in more detail. This would hopefully go some way to redeem myself as someone who is also educated on the subject. Your slightly condescending tone seems to suggest I might not be well informed. Perhaps you think I'm just another anti-capitalist hell-bent on degrading 'the system'. Frankly I don't have the time, or care very much whether people think I have ill-conceived opinions or not. I'll stop short then of picking apart anyone else's comments with similar gusto! All I would say in response is, I don't think the insurers knew what would happen before it happened. Obviously it's ridiculous to suggest they fore sore an unforeseeable event (some may disagree on both counts)! I do think many knew what was happening when it was happening and chose not to act, which deserves some justice, in whatever form it comes in. Reminds me of another mistake of epic proportions made by many financial institutions recently. In fact they chose to cash-in before the bubble burst. I think we can all agree that the bubble has well and truly burst! I don't think for one minute that I will win my case but I know I have a case (David and Goliath spring to mind). You can say the rules don't and didn't apply or that there were no rules, and you may be right, but that doesn't make it right. Perhaps the best outcome we'll get is that the rules and laws will change to stop others facing the same problem in the future. I'm not gold digging with my case and believe my complaint is genuine and completely valid. It may not stand up in court but at least the FOS carry more weight than myself alone.

PS: I agree with you about the FSCS. Me saying they're 'completely useless' in these cases was not a criticism, It was merely an attempt to point out to others that may be reading, not to waste their time approaching the FSCS.

bonnybull

Have been trying to get some information fom next about ppi, I have had ppi on my statements since 2000. Next tell me they were not regulated at the time and only became regulated 2005, I have asked them for a copy of my signature but they cannot provide that. I then asked them for there underwriters they gave me groupama I sent a questionnaire to them and got a letter back saying they are not responseable, and gave me another company called first assist, same responses from them they are only the administrators . Next are now telling me I have to go though a solicitor. Can anyone tell me if they have had any success with next