PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

marshallka

Tron_ess wrote: »

AFB a waste of time really - they're fairly toothless anyway.

As mentioned previouly - keen to understand who "sold" you the policy and the loan. Was it Click or the Company in GIB. Unless you were transferred at some point - the same "person" sold you the PPI and Loan so one of them did wrong! One didn't have authority to sell PPI, the other didn't have CCA license to broker a loan.
This is why I suggested doing more digging.

Di, you need to tell them this. I did with my "foreign" friends.

I have still got a bad back from all my digging now.

Tron_ess

di3004 wrote: »

This was the reply we received last Friday from Click Compliance guy.
To the above post I sent them.;)
But have heard nothing since.:rolleyes:

Dear Mr & Mrs

Thank you for your email and I am sorry for not replying to your earlier emails but I was hoping to let you have a response today. I regret that will not now be possible but I am sure a reply will be sent to you on Monday.

Many thanks for your patience.

Yours sincerely,


Compliance Manager.

Sounds like you may have struck a cord. Your mail to Click was very good - I would consider starting a thread to see if others affected by dissolution of previous "Click".
If numbers are considerable - then can consider placing a "class" complaint to OFT/Trading standards about them.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Di, you need to tell them this. I did with my "foreign" friends.

I have still got a bad back from all my digging now.

Okay thanks hun.;)
So basically this is another one for Click to answer too ?
Am I correct ?;)

di3004

Tron_ess wrote: »

Sounds like you may have struck a cord. Your mail to Click was very good - I would consider starting a thread to see if others affected by dissolution of previous "Click".
If numbers are considerable - then can consider placing a "class" complaint to OFT/Trading standards about them.

Thank you Tron_ess, this was with some help from Tiggrae too, so thanks to her also, not to forget our hardworking Marshallka.:D
Maybe that explains why they have not got back, think they may be stumped ??

Yes a great idea thanks.
I am in fact waiting for a reply from the OFT, but not contacted trading standards yet, could do this tomorrow.;)

catinthehat1

Interestingly, I have just checked my emails, i sent two to FOS yesterday one about credit card charges and one about PPI with FP - I have received a reply from an adjudicator about the CC claim (waiting to hear from bank) but no email re PPI - I might send another one - just so they (FOS) know I mean business!!!

marshallka

Tron_ess wrote: »

Are you complaining about how sold - or the rebate?
If just the rebate then complain against FP as insurance complaint. Consider though that I understand FP have had some success on "rebate" complaints since policies taken in mid 2006 (I think they altered their terms). [FP insurance is actually provided by Barlcays Insurance - but complaint re FP]

If you complain about how sold then should go to the broker that advised you.

I am complaining about the rebate. I submitted this ages ago to the FOS but used the wording of rule 78 in it and got it passed and allocated an adjudicator and then 2 days later had a letter to day outside their jurisidciton although at the time of my settlement FP were members of the GISC. I perhaps worded it wrong.MY settlement was in 2003 and it was a firstplus own policy and had the terms of "Rebate not in proportion of what your premium cost". (under written by 4 companies)

Tron_ess

marshallka wrote: »

Tron_ess you have completely lost me here . I was on about rule of 78 applied to your settlement and then its used on the loan and PPI and the interest too. It works out most of time ifyou settle early that you owe more than you borrowed and its unfair. ALso when its applied to your PPI (as this is really a loan) then again its unfair.

Am i missing something here. When i settled the loan i had rule 78 used on the loan and PPI and then it was much higher to settle. If rule 78 was used just on the loan then the PPI rebate worked out using a fairer method then it would have been lower. I don't think rule 78 should be on both loan and PPI.

In fact i can see why rule 78 was abolished.

Rule of 78 was only abolished on loans.

When you are claiming a rebate for cancelling insurance - insurers are still allowed to use Rule of 78. They merely take the premium amount - and apply their calculation to that. Then take that from the current loan.

The point I was making is that few actually give you Rule of 78. What they do is apply rule of 78 against a % of the original premium. They may only apply the rule of 78 against 25% of the premium. This means that if you cancelled after 45 days - you'd only get 25% rebate. That's their starting point!!! If you use true rule of 78 on a 5 year policy and cancelled in Month 2 you get approx 85% back. (crude maths here - but you get the picture).

Basically if firms were applying rule of 78 FOS would have no issues. The fact is that they first take 50% or more away, and then apply rule of 78!!

Tron_ess

di3004 wrote: »

Thank you Tron_ess, this was with some help from Tiggrae too, so thanks to her also, not to forget our hardworking Marshallka.:D
Maybe that explains why they have not got back, think they may be stumped ??

Yes a great idea thanks.
I am in fact waiting for a reply from the OFT, but not contacted trading standards yet, could do this tomorrow.;)

If thinking of contacting Trading Standards please bare in mind you need to contact the Trading Standards in the area of the firm! Not your own.

marshallka

Tron_ess wrote: »

If thinking of contacting Trading Standards please bare in mind you need to contact the Trading Standards in the area of the firm! Not your own.

I didn't know that:D

di3004

Tron_ess wrote: »

If thinking of contacting Trading Standards please bare in mind you need to contact the Trading Standards in the area of the firm! Not your own.

Thanks Tron_ess so this would be in Farnham then ?;) I would have contacted my own if you hadn't said lol.
Cheers so much again.