PPI Reclaims not covered by the FOS

[Deleted User]

Alan_Medcalf wrote: »

is there any other action we can take,

Well, the only other action you could take is litigation. This is not recommended though, as it is expensive and you'd very likely lose in court.

Time to put this one to bed.

dunstonh

Alan_Medcalf wrote: »

My wife had a Mortgage with the Legal and General Insurance Ltd, arranged through Derby Mortgage Advice Bureau, unknown to her there was a PPI Policy raised, even the application form for the Mortgage the section re PPI is blank, Direct Debit payments for this cover is paid to Legal and General, both refuse to accept that it is their problem, passed to the Financial Ombudsman who have responded saying , as the Policy was sold was before 14 January 2005 as this was before businesses selling Insurance were regulated they cannot look at complaints against them, is there any other action we can take, many thanks for any help you may be able to give.

As mentioned above, it is pre-regulation. If it is less than 15 years ago then you can try the courts. However, that is likely to fail. Mainly as the type of PPI you have is the good type. Standalone monthly premium not built into the debt. One of two types of PPI still retailed today.

The PPI issue is mainly against banks. Mortgage brokers/advisers account for under 1% of complaints with the majority of those rejected. Even many claims companies wont take on complaints against them.

Millown

I have spoken to two different Manager's at Natwest, one states that it is CPP and one states that it is in fact PPI. I am now confused. I thought that CPP was a set amount, i.e, GBP30 and not necessarily a percentage of the card's balance as it appeared on the statement. Hence the reason I assumed that it was PPI. I am in the process of retrieving further statements.

dunstonh

MissCat213 wrote: »

Hi everyone,
First off I'm sorry if I've posted this in the wrong thread! I've visited this forum many times over the years & a lot recently and it's quite a mine of information as well as mind-boggling navigating the threads 😜
Now I've actually joined to ask for some specific help as Googling hasn't given me the info I really need. I'm at the stage of having received offers of compensation from RBS on two cases & my gut/rough calculations & comparison to a previous settlement from another provider tell me it's likely to be somewhat lower than it should be. I think the key lies on being able to work out the initial interest amount on the PPI premiums rather than the 8% statutory amount added on that amount.
I just got both offer letters today and wondered if there's an avid mathematician who could do the calculations for me please? (Cheeky I know, but maths & I aren't great friends )

Anyway the first one relates to:-
Total premiums paid = £ 911 (policy on loan from 25/07/1997 - 16/04/2002
RBS offer on this is:-
Total refund of Ppi & associated interest = £ 1204.20
Statory interest etc etc -= £ 1786.10
Minus tax - £ 357.22
Net offer = £ 2633.08

As I say, I can see their final calculation on these figures is correct, it's the first sum of ppi & interest I'm not sure of,

This second offer may be a little more obvious ?!
Total premiums paid = £158.00 ( policy on loan from 03/02/1997 - 05/08/1997)
RBS offer on this:-
Total refund of Ppi & associated interest = £ 40.38 (??!)
Statutory interest etc etc = £ 70.14
Minus tax = - £ 14.03
Net offer = £ 96.49

I can see some overlap of about a month on these policies, which may account for the strange figures given the letters say "....it has come to light that your loan forms part of a consolidated loan chain...." "....the bank is prepared to uphold your complaint and to offer you the following redress...."
I'm lead to think this is less than I am entitled to as Barclaycard paid me a greater amount on about half the total initial premiums paid?
So basically my little brain is exploding trying to work out whether to accept these offers or not? Or accept the larger one and dispute the odd smaller one?
Help! (Please )

Your post is off topic for this thread. Create a thread of your own and copy and paste your message into it.

MissCat213

Sorry, I couldn't see where/how to do that ��

Edit: Done now.

Stevendgordon

Hi, wondering if anyone can advise on this for me. I had 2 loans with Welcome Finance in 2003 and 2004. Both taken out with PPI as recommended by Welcome Finance face to face in their offices in Edinburgh. I claimed for both, they gave me the 2003 one back no problems. 2004 one they are refusing to give back, as they claim they used Dial4aloan to arrange the PPI for them. Dial4aloan and Welcome seem to both be at the same address?! Dial4aloan say as they are a broker not a lender,they were not under the FSA regularion back in 2004, and so will not consider any claim. They mentioned i may want to consider the lender Welcome finance or who supplied the PPI, Aviva. I originally claimed from Welcome, but they forwaded it on to Dial4aloan as they said they arranged the PPI! I do not understand how Welcome Finance gave me the one back a year earlier , but not this one, a year later. I tried this in 2012, and it went to the Financial Omnibudsman who turned this down aswell, as said they cant act on 2004 Claims as werent under their control then. I thought i would try again , as its for a 17k loan. Dial4aloan refuse to budge, is it worth going to Aviva who actually paid the ppi for the loan? Welcome were the ones who i thought i got the loan and ppi with, but in background they used dial4aloan! Dial4aloan tell me this is their final decision and as been to Omnibudsman, i have no further routes to try.

[Deleted User]

Stevendgordon wrote: »

i have no further routes to try.

That's correct. You don't have anywhere to go as it was via a broker.

dunstonh

ial4aloan say as they are a broker not a lender,they were not under the FSA regularion back in 2004, and so will not consider any claim.

Most brokers were not regulated until Jan 2005. So, that sounds correct.

I originally claimed from Welcome, but they forwaded it on to Dial4aloan as they said they arranged the PPI!

That is also the correct response. The lender has no liability for the PPI complaint when it is put in place by a broker.

it went to the Financial Omnibudsman who turned this down aswell, as said they cant act on 2004 Claims as werent under their control then.

Correct. FOS can only consider post regulation sales or those made by a seller who was with an earlier body.

I thought i would try again , as its for a 17k loan. Dial4aloan refuse to budge,

And they shouldn't as they are correct.

is it worth going to Aviva who actually paid the ppi for the loan?

There is a very small window of cases where the underwriter carries the liability. This is really your only opportunity now. Odds of it working are single digit but its all you have left.

Bermonia

For what it’s worth Aviva has agreed to consider some Welcome PPI sales, however only those that took place before February 2003.

As such they would not consider your case and the original outcome remains.

muddlemand

This isn't covered by the ombudsman, and also isn't covered by FSCS as it was before the FCA register, I think. Sorry it's pretty long but it wasn't straightforward, at least I personally find it complicated!

Moved house in 2001 with my ex husband and took out a new mortgage. Last week I found some paperwork - incomplete - including some from an adviser, not sure if he was a broker or just a financial adviser. He wasn't independent and we had had financial advice from him previously. It seems certain that he and his company ceased trading long ago, I've looked everywhere online for either name.

He had a company (BreakAway Mortgage Services Ltd) and the deal was that they made a better offer for our mortgage - we did keep paying the Woolwich (Barclays) but for slightly lower monthly payments, the term was greatly reduced, with a clever scheme behind the scenes that made the figures work. I'm sorry, I can't explain the relationship between the Woolwich and BreakAway better than that (but I can go into more detail if anyone asks).

I remember the conversations fairly well given that it's so long ago and I had baby brain at the time! I did understand the way BreakAway made the mortgage amount to less, at the time.

The paperwork I just found goes into the need for insurance to cover loss of earnings from redundancy, illness etc (quite pushy about the need for it) - ie PPI. One paragraph says that this cover is included in the monthly payments - I *think* that means it was automatically within our payments and wasn't optional. I also think it means we were paying this cover on top of the cover we were told to have by the lender.

So here's the specific question: so far I have found out that when a business has ceased trading, you go to the FSCS and if the business was on the FCA register they will handle the claim. But BreakAway wasn't. However, it *was* regulated by the MCCB (Mortgage Code Compliance Board) and the Office of Fair Trading. Both of those have ceased to exist. I'm trying to find out if there's a body that will take this claim on, in the way the FSCS deals with things that used to be the FCA... if you see what I mean.

The FCA don't know, the Money Advice Service don't know, I haven't got through to the CAB but will keep trying, the Financial Ombudsman sounded half asleep and barely understood the question(!)... so I thought I'd see if anyone here might know if there's a next step to try.

We paid the mortgage for 12 years, and presumably these premiums, so it would come to quite a lot; obviously the payout will be joint if I get one, but still. I'm now in poor health with almost zero income and no prospects and no one's help, so I'm really hoping - it wouldn't fix my financial situation but it may get me a bit closer to my pension before my money situation collapses in on me.


PS. The lender was the Woolwich. I don't think we were missold PPI by them, but have just filled out the Barclays online form just in case. (We did both have life cover with the Zurich and I wasn't earning at all (small baby) so maybe we didn't need the cover for me.) He also had critical illness, which they wouldn't give me because of type 1 diabetes. We did believe we had no choice about this cover but I think(?) that was true. I don't think the Woolwich missold, because I very much doubt we told them that we were paying premiums another way. And (please tell me if this is wrong) there's no point going to Zurich about this?)