Should I find out the underwriter of Vauxhall Finance/GMAC UK plc or the car dealer?

topoftherock

Hi guys,
I've written to Vauxhall Finance plc and the car dealer in relation to a van that my father had on Higher Purchase from 1990 to 1996. Now, I've read that many dealers were not regulated pre 2005, however, I have also read of a PPI success (pre 2005) in a similar situation whereby the underwriter took responsibility and ultimately upheld the PPI claim and paid out.

Now, we only have paper work at the end of the agreement (with the agreement number on there) and information of the "supplying dealer" (the dealer still exists by the way). With the deadline approaching, I've have already sent off two letters to Vauxhall Finance plc/dealer (asking if PPI was sold/asking for a DSAR etc) and included the aforementioned letter.

So my question is does anyone know who underwrote for Vauxhall Finance/GMAC UK plc during this period? (or is it the dealer's underwriter I need to be contacting?). Could I get this information directly from Vauxhall Finance/GMAC UK plc/dealer? I want to act quickly to avoid the deadline.

Kind regards

SonOf

Now, I've read that many dealers were not regulated pre 2005, however, I have also read of a PPI success (pre 2005) in a similar situation whereby the underwriter took responsibility and ultimately upheld the PPI claim and paid out.

In a very small number of scenarios, the insurer can end up carrying the liability if a certain business relationship exists and it falls within a very limited window upto 2005. Most typically this is around 2000-2005. But it could go back further.

Maybe you could ask where you found that other successful case who the insurer was and what year they took it out

topoftherock

SonOf wrote: »

In a very small number of scenarios, the insurer can end up carrying the liability if a certain business relationship exists and it falls within a very limited window upto 2005. Most typically this is around 2000-2005. But it could go back further.

Maybe you could ask where you found that other successful case who the insurer was and what year they took it out

Many thanks for your reply! Sorry if this sounds a silly question, but who would be classed as the insurer here? Vauxhall finance or the dealer? Moreover, do you think I could contact Vauxhall finance plc/and or dealer and ask who was their underwriters from 1990 to 1996? (I forgot to add in the first post, that my dad had an initial agreement from 1990 to 1994 and then it was extended by 2 years. However, we only have the paperwork at the end of the first agreement in 1994. He was self employed for the duration of this agreement and had a pre-existing medical condition, I.e glaucoma, diagnosed In 1994; if this would help the claim in anyway).

topoftherock

SonOf wrote: »

In a very small number of scenarios, the insurer can end up carrying the liability if a certain business relationship exists and it falls within a very limited window upto 2005. Most typically this is around 2000-2005. But it could go back further.

Maybe you could ask where you found that other successful case who the insurer was and what year they took it out

I have found an article from March 1999 which states that Pinnacle Insurance were (are?) Vauxhall Finance’s underwriters. It stated “Since Vauxhall Finance launched its payment protection plan insurance with Pinnacle three years ago the value of claims has reached £1m”. So that’s 1996, so is it worth writing to them and giving it a go? Or should I contact Vauxhall finance/dealer and ask?

AnotherJoe

What are your dads grounds for claiming it was missold, especially since he extended an already existing contract which on the face of it seems to show he was (a) aware of it, and (b) happy with it?

topoftherock

AnotherJoe wrote: »

What are your dads grounds for claiming it was missold, especially since he extended an already existing contract which on the face of it seems to show he was (a) aware of it, and (b) happy with it?

Thanks for your reply. From what I've read it could have been mis-sold because he was self-employed and had a pre-existing medical condition.

AnotherJoe

One pre existing condition (glaucoma) wouldnt bar a claim for an unrelated one, say a heart condition.
Don't know about self employed, I can see that might well be grounds in which case better put a claim in right now. Good luck.

Keep_pedalling

Was this van purchased for his business? If so I don’t see how being self employed is a valid reason for mis selling as business PPI is designed with SE people in mind.

topoftherock

AnotherJoe wrote: »

One pre existing condition (glaucoma) wouldnt bar a claim for an unrelated one, say a heart condition.
Don't know about self employed, I can see that might well be grounds in which case better put a claim in right now. Good luck.

Thanks for the support. What do you mean by “One pre existing condition (glaucoma) wouldnt bar a claim for an unrelated one, say a heart condition.”. Are you saying that the glaucoma condition is a valid reason, just like a heart condition? Well, I’ve written 3 letters (Vauxhall finance, car dealer and pinnacle insurance plc/Cardif pinnacle). The pinnacle one is a long shot though because I think they started underwriting for Vauxhall finance in 1996 and my father’s agreement was from 1990 to 1996. Could I realistically phone up Vauxhall finance and the car dealer on Tuesday and ask them who was your underwriter from 1990 to 1996?

topoftherock

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

Was this van purchased for his business? If so I don’t see how being self employed is a valid reason for mis selling as business PPI is designed with SE people in mind.

Yes, it was purchased for his business; he was sole trader. Yes, it’s a good point you have mentioned. How about the pre-existing medical condition then? P.S Can his wife’s circumstances at the time (I.e my mother) be brought into such a situation? (Civil servant-full redundancy/sick/accident pay etc).

AnotherJoe

topoftherock wrote: »

Thanks for the support. What do you mean by “One pre existing condition (glaucoma) wouldnt bar a claim for an unrelated one, say a heart condition.”. Are you saying that the glaucoma condition is a valid reason, just like a heart condition?

No, you seemed to imply that because there was a pre existing condition (glaucoma) this would invalidate the whole PPI and therefor it was a missale . But it wouldn't, it would only invalidate it if the cause of him stopping work was due to glaucoma. If he had, say, a heart attack, or fell over and broke a leg, and that caused him to stop work, that wouldn't be invalidated by having glaucoma.

topoftherock wrote: »

I’ve written 3 letters (Vauxhall finance, car dealer and pinnacle insurance plc/Cardif pinnacle). The pinnacle one is a long shot though because I think they started underwriting for Vauxhall finance in 1996 and my father’s agreement was from 1990 to 1996. Could I realistically phone up Vauxhall finance and the car dealer on Tuesday and ask them who was your underwriter from 1990 to 1996?

The claim is against who sold it, not who underwrote it.

Back to basics, when you complain, you need to have grounds for missale.
What are yours? Is it that this PPI didn't cover self employed people? If it did cover self employed, on what grounds are you claiming ?