PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

sparky0107

marshallka wrote: »

Was it motor finance?

Hi marshallka,
Don't know hun, will have to ask bro tomorrow. Thanks

Laini

tiggrae wrote: »

be VERY VERY careful what you put, if it's additional evidence then fine, otherwise the otherside requests the whole case be re-examined because of the new information provided - in otherwords the adjudication is set aside and you go around the mill again - only to be back in the same place with the adjudication going to the ombudsman for a final decision in 3-6 months time !!!!

Tiggrae
The adjudicator said he thinks it wouldnt harm anything but also might not help
here is what I was going to send

Thank you for sending our file details (SAR request).
I have noticed in the file you are wondering why we have left it so long to send our complaint to The Financial Ombudsman.
We originally contacted you after we settled the loan concerning a rebate (which we were informed we should be able to get this was advised by our new loan company at the time not yourselves).
At this point we didn’t realize it was for PPI we thought it was for the loan in general.
We originally thought the high settlement figure was an early redemption penalty figure nothing to do with PPI
We thought we were paying a monthly insurance not a front loaded policy which we think was mis sold.
At the time of settling the loan I was suffering from depression due to my father passing away suddenly mid Nov 2006.
I hope you appreciate my mind was not on finances
so when I was told we could ask for a rebate (as I said not by yourselves) I contacted Nemo you said we were only entitled to a small amount which I would like to add you did not offer/advise at the time of settlement which is very disappointing as a customer service.
I did say I was unhappy about it and was very reluctant to accept it.
At the time I didnt have any fight in me and just thought life was like that at the time full of raw deals and to be honest I didn’t understand it and didn’t have the money to which I thought we needed to take it further at the time - to take it to court.
I thought the FOS was a service we had to pay for.
I really didn’t think that such reputable companies would be able to promote and sell such a package which is really no use to their customers only as a money making tool for the companies themselves.
Having got my life back on track I have been looking at our finances and have realized we could have taken it to the FOS without any costs to ourselves so did so once I have realized this.
So I apologise for the delay in this and look forward to your reply to The Financial Ombudsman Service.

Yours Sincerely

what do you think?

Leighmcl

singlep wrote: »

I doubt you can win on the pre existing illness rules BUT they should have considered the total cost of the PPI as relevant to your Demands and Needs as stated in ICOB 4.3.6. FOS is likely to tell them they should have considered "a monthly premium alternative" which is always cheaper than single premium with interest and will likely find in your favour. Go to FOS and quote this rule which is renumbered in ICOBS, 5.3.2 (wef 01/08).

What is the renumbered in ICOBS 5.3.2 (wef 01/08 bit Singlep, so sorry I'm being a bit thick but not sure what to quote, is it the above or ICOB 4.3.6?

THanks

singlep

Sorry, when you effected your ppi it was ICOB. I mentioned ICOBS only if someone wanted to go to FSA website for latest rules.

Leighmcl

singlep wrote: »

Sorry, when you effected your ppi it was ICOB. I mentioned ICOBS only if someone wanted to go to FSA website for latest rules.

Thank for your help Singlep - I've done FOS letter and am sending it tomorrow

Cheers

di3004

tiggrae wrote: »

these are two separately registered companies 04183791 is Click Financial Limited previous name 1 Click (UK) limited, incorporated 21/3/2001 with offices in Farnham Surrey

04239176 was Click Finance Limited, registered office in Leeds - previous name 1 Click Loans Limited - incorporated 21/6/2001 dissoved June 2006

Which company did you deal with - as the first is still active !!!!

Going back to this, even though I stated it was the 2nd one, the address on the paperwork I do have is that of Surrey in Farnham....:rolleyes: , yet the number on the paperwork is that of the 2nd one.....:rolleyes: .
Baffling this !!

singlep

1 Click Loans is accessible on Google and is still trading at the Farnham address. But it is not listed on FSA register of firms, meaning that 1 Click loans probably "introduces" ppi to Click Financial.

di3004

singlep wrote: »

1 Click Loans is accessible on Google and is still trading at the Farnham address. But it is not listed on FSA register of firms, meaning that 1 Click loans probably "introduces" ppi to Click Financial.

Thx Singlep.;)

Its like putting a jigsaw piece together, but what gets me is that the one that is active on companies house, is that of the address I have on the paperwork, in Farnham then, but yet the registration number on my paperwork is that dissolved, but as said 2 separate companies....:rolleyes: .
Think I should continue to write to the directors as added on the site stated.

Thank you your information is very useful.

Di.

DeepintheRed

The guys on the Wannabe Debt Free threads suggested I look here for some advice on PPI. We currently have 4 credit cards, 2 unsecured loans and 1 secured loan each of which include some form of PPI. I'm looking to go on a DMP as we can't afford to pay back all the debt so if I do, can I claim any PPI back?
I'm new here and pretty thick when it comes to money (obviously or maybe I wouldn't be in this mess! :-)

bathgatebuyer

I had a quick 'google' over some PPI articles yesterday lunchtime and found a report from the Competition Commission when they interviewed HBOS who admitted that credit was only really profitable when PPI was sold with it.

:money: Think that may also feature in my legal case against them as they denied in their defence that this was the case. That's next to their 'Halifax Insurance Ireland is not a subsidiary of HBOS' statement which was also disproven on their own website.