We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

FOS claiming 'no connection' between company which sold PPI and insurers

Options
2»

Comments

  • Fred_Funk
    Fred_Funk Posts: 17 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    edited 27 May 2021 at 10:37AM
    Options
    Hello again dunstonh

    Firstly, apologies for my tardy reply but I've been stupidly busy.

    Secondly, please rest assured I don't regard you as being negative. I absolutely get where you're coming from and the challenges you raise are extremely useful in focusing my thoughts and helping me to build up a stronger case.
    Have you given a copy of that [the Cofidis application form] to the FOS?
    No, I haven't. However, I'm in the process of making a further submission before my complaint is considered by an ombudsman and will make sure it's included in this. 

    While I accept Chubb may argue Cofidis was not acting as its agent, it is my understanding that as a member of the Association of British Insurers, it had an obligation to act in accordance with ABI guidelines and take measures to ensure that any third party, such as Cofidis, selling PPI policies on its behalf did so in accordance with the industry codes of good practice. That's to say, regardless of the nature of the relationship between Cofidis and Chubb, ie even if the former wasn't acting as an agent of the latter, Chubb would have had an obligation to ensure that anyone selling one of their policies should, at the very least, have undertaken some kind of due diligence. Tell me, am I mistaken in this?

    Assuming I'm not, I think the case that this did not happen is incontrovertible. Cofidis made no attempt whatsoever to establish my circumstances and whether or not their 'special Cofidis Payment Protection Plan' was appropriate for me. Moreover, I wasn't supplied with any T&Cs [I obtained these some years later when I first became aware the PPI might have been mis-sold] so I knew no more about the cover than what little it says in the Cofidis application form. 

    Unfortunately, try as I might, I've been unable to locate a copy of the ABI Code which, I imagine, might provide some detail of what measures an insurer should take to ensure its products aren't mis-sold. If you, or anyone else reading this thread, can point me in the direction of a copy of the ABI Code I'd be most incredibly grateful.
    Forget about post-regulation changes.  The rules and law have changed many times over the years.  The rules at date of sale are what matters. But even this would not indicate the insurer was liable as Cofidis could have gone to 5 different insurers, told them what they wanted and Chubb was the one they chose from that.
    I get this, but my point here, apropos the Law Commission / Scottish Law Commission paper, was not the post-regulation changes it was advocating but, rather, the recognition that whether or not an intermediary is acting as an agent of the insurer tends not to be as black & white. With this in mind, whatever Chubb might say, I think a strong case can be made that Cofidis was acting as its agent.

    Once again, I shall look forward to hearing from you, or anyone else who might like to contribute to the discussion.

    Thanks again
    Fred_Funk






Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 344.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 450.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 236.5K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 610K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.6K Life & Family
  • 249.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards