PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

marshallka

Tron_ess wrote: »

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!!

Hence Firstplus's infair term in which they state a rebate not in proportion of what the premium cost and rule 78. Can this complaint be taken to the FOS then if they were GISC members at the time of your settlement and it was pre 2005??? I was knocked back with mine but Tiggrae thinks you can do.

Tron_ess

marshallka wrote: »

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)

Quite right - i think FP were actually using different insurers back then. Don't recall their name.

Did FP actually sell the product though - or a Broker. I'd still consider missell if they didn't explain the rebate terms. They've effectively not explained a fundamental term of the contract.

Tron_ess

Sorry guys - gotta run.

di3004

Tron_ess wrote: »

Sorry guys - gotta run.

Okay hun, we thank you for all your help again, you have been a fantastic help, and please come back soon.:D

Di.
xx

marshallka

Tron_ess wrote: »

Quite right - i think FP were actually using different insurers back then. Don't recall their name.

Did FP actually sell the product though - or a Broker. I'd still consider missell if they didn't explain the rebate terms. They've effectively not explained a fundamental term of the contract.

Tron-ess i only want them on unfair rebate and its FIrsptlus i want to go for here. It was not them that sold it, rather another company. I have sort of sorted that myself and its just this little matter now.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Tron-ess i only want them on unfair rebate and its FIrsptlus i want to go for here. It was not them that sold it, rather another company. I have sort of sorted that myself and its just this little matter now.

Oops, I expect you have noticed hun that Tron_ess had to run.....:D , lol, I'm sure Tron_ess will be back to answer this soon.;)

Just sent you a pm hunni.;)

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Oops, I expect you have noticed hun that Tron_ess had to run.....:D , lol, I'm sure Tron_ess will be back to answer this soon.;)

Just sent you a pm hunni.;)

I hope so as i really want to know this. I want to know if my complaint that i had originally with the FOS was a mistake in that it was within their jurisdiction. It was for unfair settlement and rule 78 but i must have worded it wrong or something. I put against the whole loan as the use of rule 78 was used in the settlement and the PPI. Now i understand the i should have put unfair rebate of the PPi and use of rule 78. It was just how much i actually understood about this blummin policy and how it was calculated. It was just a fair rebate i wanted.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

I hope so as i really want to know this. I want to know if my complaint that i had originally with the FOS was a mistake in that it was within their jurisdiction. It was for unfair settlement and rule 78 but i must have worded it wrong or something. I put against the whole loan as the use of rule 78 was used in the settlement and the PPI. Now i understand the i should have put unfair rebate of the PPi and use of rule 78. It was just how much i actually understood about this blummin policy and how it was calculated. It was just a fair rebate i wanted.

Yes I know what you mean hun..... it will be peace of mind wouldn't it ?
Hopefully Tron_ess will be back later, fingers crossed, as I am also interested to know this too hun.;)

di3004

I just remembered something and checked back on some of my emails, I also asked Click to confirm if they were ever covered by GISC, that email was sent before the other one where I am waiting a response on and they also said they would get back to me on that one too, so what is so difficult about not getting an answer to that one straight away ??

Hmmm, maybe if these were then they do not want to confirm this because I would have the chance to take this to the FOS ??:rolleyes:

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Yes I know what you mean hun..... it will be peace of mind wouldn't it ?
Hopefully Tron_ess will be back later, fingers crossed, as I am also interested to know this too hun.;)

Have you got all this info Di.

Legal Disclosure
Complaints

Click is committed to providing excellent services. Should you have reason to find fault in our service we would welcome the opportunity to put things right. We encourage you to give us this opportunity by contacting us:

• By email: ted ?????
• By telephone: 01252 728855
• By Post: The Compliance Officer, Click Financial Limited, Click House, Bear Lane, Farnham, Surrey, GU9 7LG;

Company and Regulatory information

Click is a trading style used by:

• Click Financial Limited (CFL), company number 04183791, which is registered in England and Wales is a wholly owned subsidiary of Click Group Limited, company number 4781131. Their registered office is at Click House, Bear Lane, Farnham, Surrey, GU9 7LG. CFL is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority for the provision of insurance products, including the provision of Life Insurance, Mortgage Protection insurance, Critical Illness insurance and Payment Protection insurance. The Financial Services authority does not regulate Secured Loans. CFL is an intermediary for Life insurance products and a packager of Secured Loans on behalf of International Financial Placements Limited
• International Financial Placements Limited (IFP) is a trading partner of the Click Group and registered in Gibraltar, company registration number (46156) at 932 Europort. IFP holds a Consumer Credit Licence, number 574586, issued by the Office of Fair Trading. IFP is an intermediary of Secured Loans
• Castle Wealth Management Limited (CWM) is a trading partner of the Click Group and registered in Gibraltar, company registration number (93004) at 932 Europort. CWM is regulated by the Financial Services Commission of Gibraltar. CWM introduces prospective customers to CFL.