PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

bathgatebuyer

sparky0107 wrote: »

Morning all,
Sent off to Halifax Cetelem, for my original CCA, for retail sale of 3 piece suite from CSL, put in the letter about sales person being pushy, not stating policy was optional & lack of training for selling insurance products, then sent off the template letter asking for PPI back. Received this reply yesterday, can you tell me where to go from here? Any help appreciated.

Cetelem (UK) Limited

Anderston House

389 Argyle Street
Glasgow
Scotland
G2 8LR

Sparky 0107
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

Account number: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX



Dear Sparky0107

We refer to your letter concerning Payment Protection Insurance (PPI).

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the allegation that you were mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance (PPI).

The Agreement makes it clear that PPI was optional; the criteria for making a claim are set out clearly, as is the cost of the policy. You have failed to provide any evidence substantiating your claim that the retailer failed to explain the key aspects of your policy or provide information at the time to enable you to make an informed decision as to whether or not to accept PPI. For those reasons the allegation that you were mis-sold PPI is refuted.

As you will be aware, the sale of PPI was not regulated until 14 January 2005. In addition, we confirm that, other than holding the requisite consumer credit licence (as required by the Office of Fair Trading), Cetelem (UK) Limited was not and was never a member of the General Insurance Standards Council (GISC) or the Association of British Insurers (ABI). Furthermore, Cetelem (UK) Limited is not a member of the Financial & Leasing Association (FLA). As a result, neither the Financial Ombudsman Service nor the FLA have jurisdiction to deal with this matter.

Furthermore, we confirm that Cetelem (UK) Limited ceased to write any business with effect from January 2005

Yours Sincerely
XXXXXX XXXXX

Thanks again

Is the onus not on them to prove that correct procedures were followed and that the insurance product sold to you was 'fit for purpose' under the Sale of Goods Act? I don't that for sure, but it's something I've seen kicking around on other forums. Edit - sorry been back noticed that this relates to the sale of a sofa - should the mis-selling issue then be with the retail store?

bathgatebuyer

angelwillow wrote: »

I know exactly what you mean as this is what happened with my loan too which HBOS are trying to get out of paying me ppi back.
I'm not gonna let it go at that.............

Have a look at the Insurance Code of Business Sourcebook on the FSA website. I'm sure there's something on that about customers being provided with sufficient information about a policy prior to a sale being concluded. Will have a look at the papers I have and see if I can find this for you.

sarahc5388

sarahc5388 wrote: »

I'd definately question these figures

Request a sar - it will show their calculations - either that or go back into the bank and demand that they explain these figures!!

Laini

sarahc5388 wrote: »

you read my mind marshallka! it does indeed - i suspect that these companies are here to rip more people off.

There are plenty of people on here to help along the way, who have already been through most situations, we even have some experts!

they should call this the M & S thread or do I mean S &M
U both live on here -Iam not complaining its great!!
keep going I love it!!
LAINI X:j:j:j

sarahc5388

bathgatebuyer wrote: »

Is the onus not on them to prove that correct procedures were followed and that the insurance product sold to you was 'fit for purpose' under the Sale of Goods Act? I don't that for sure, but it's something I've seen kicking around on other forums. Edit - sorry been back noticed that this relates to the sale of a sofa - should the mis-selling issue then be with the retail store?

The mis-selling of the PPI rests with the company/retail store that sold you the PPI, you need to write to them. You can also request copies of all training the staff have had actual training records

marshallka

Tiggrae, just received a letter from Firstpus where i quoted section 75 of CCA 1974 as you said and they state

You have referred to section 75 of the consumer credit act 1974 within your letter, however, as we discussed, this provides protection for consumers with regards to their credit card facility and quality of goods they have purchased with them.

They will not take responsibility and they have again given me a final response and said Bespoke Finance sold you the policy.

Just found this on the FOS site


disputes involving Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

Each year, we receive a significant number of complaints that involve Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 – under which, in certain circumstances, the provider of credit is equally liable with the provider of goods or services where there is a breach of contract or misrepresentation.
Up until now, almost all these complaints have involved credit card transactions (both at home and abroad). However, going forward we expect our work in this area to expand, reflecting our new consumer credit jurisdiction and the extension of our existing jurisdiction to include complaints about point-of-sale loans and store cards.

Full details here

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/62/62-consumer-credit.htm



and here as well

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 states that the lender of money for a purchase is jointly responsible with the seller for the purchaser getting the goods or service purchased, or receiving a full refund if they do not receive the goods or service. What this means in practice is that if you paid more than œ100 by a UK issued personal credit card (but not a debit or charge card), or borrowed money under a loan agreement regulated by the CCA74 and arranged by the trader, then you can claim ALL the money you paid (irrespective of how you paid it) provided that the maximum contrcat value does not exceed £30,000, back from the card company or lender if you do not get what you bought.


God i hate this company.:mad: :mad: :mad:

sarahc5388

Laini wrote: »

they should call this the M & S thread or do I mean S &M
U both live on here -Iam not complaining its great!!
keep going I love it!!
LAINI X:j:j:j

thank gos i can get on here at work!!! having next week off though and i won't have access - aarrgggg, sweating at the thought of not being able to get on here, will go to niece's house anf get on from there!

Laini

sarahc5388 wrote: »

thank gos i can get on here at work!!! having next week off though and i won't have access - aarrgggg, sweating at the thought of not being able to get on here, will go to niece's house anf get on from there![/quot
cold turkey - very scarey :eek:
you can do it:cool:

- but the thing is we need you on here 24 7 so cancel your holiday :eek::eek::eek:
only kidding!!:p
Laini x:j:j

bb23

marshallka wrote: »

have you queried this with them about the 10K thing? Did you receive 10K or the amount above? Is this the total loan including interest do you think?

It doesn't add up at all.

all that i ended up with was the 8k

its very weird, i remember him muttering as he was going through it saying stuff like "ok, so we'll ad this here, and we'll take this off now, then we can pay off your debt here with this and then put this back on here" something like that, it wasnt exactly that - i cant remember now it was 5 years ago. i do remember wondering why he was doing like that.

:rolleyes:

marshallka

Just emailed Firstplus and put them right. They have now sent me the email address of someone to complain to direct. They are still accepting no responsibilty.:mad: