PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Wonder if Companies house will let me have any information on the previous dissolved Click without charging ??:rolleyes:

I only really need to know who the director was, and some other little bits really, I could always just tell them I am getting very confused with each of these Click companies and may have been trying to complain to the wrong one ?
What do you say folks ?

You don't want to pay any more for these bawstewards. I would perhaps ask first and let them know your predicament.

marshallka

money_back wrote: »

notting at all they just wrote saying as the accout is in arrears it would be cancelled

even thought i asked for it to be done

So when you cancelled the PPI did your monthly premiums go down and also did you get a rebate etc. What figures can you let us have on here so someone can check.?

I can't make out if this was a single preium or just a monthly amount here?

Write the first template letter and send it anyway but if you can let us know more info we can all look and see if we can help. Send the letter recorded delivery so you have a proof too.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

You don't want to pay any more for these bawstewards. I would perhaps ask first and let them know your predicament.

Yes true, and I can't afford to really right now with hubby on the sick... , so I will explain that I may have contacted the wrong company, they may just correct me here by saying I have or have not ?

I had better put something together tonight then, because it won't be until tomorrow or maybe the following day they will reply, think it was the next day the last time, so not long about waiting then.;)

Tron_ess

Marshallka,

re your FP issue. Not 100% sure what you originally took to the FOS.
Rule of 78 is not illegal or against rules - point is that you were not getting rule of 78 against 100% of your premium.

You probably had it against something more like 50% of the premium (an example as most firms are slightly different). So basically if you cancel in 30 days you get 100%. If in month 2 you get 50% !!! Then they apply Rule of 78 from there. The point is - you didn't know!! and probably still don't because the T&Cs of the policy didn't make this clear. Unfair contract term perhaps?
I have to agree with Tiggrae in that you may still have some mileage in this.

Alterntively - ask FP why they hadn't disclosed to you the commission paid to the broker who arranged the loan (Hurstanger).

di3004

Regarding commission here, it was never disclosed to me either, from any of the brokers from what I can remember, only on some of the underwriting work I was aware of this and the amounts, this was because I requested a SAR from the lenders where they supplied only a few sheets of the brokers/underwriters paperwork.
Did not know beforehand though.

marshallka

Tron_ess wrote: »

Marshallka,

re your FP issue. Not 100% sure what you originally took to the FOS.
Rule of 78 is not illegal or against rules - point is that you were not getting rule of 78 against 100% of your premium.

You probably had it against something more like 50% of the premium (an example as most firms are slightly different). So basically if you cancel in 30 days you get 100%. If in month 2 you get 50% !!! Then they apply Rule of 78 from there. The point is - you didn't know!! and probably still don't because the T&Cs of the policy didn't make this clear. Unfair contract term perhaps?
I have to agree with Tiggrae in that you may still have some mileage in this.

Alterntively - ask FP why they hadn't disclosed to you the commission paid to the broker who arranged the loan (Hurstanger).

I have sent a complaint to the FOS for unfair rebate but not heard anything back yet. Do you think this will be thrown out again.?

I don;t want the courts route yet, just this unfair rebate thing....

There was commission paid to the broker of 5 % of the loan but not anything about the PPI?

It was only the loan that commission was paid on and it was not disclosed to me. I already complained to FP about this one too. Nothing mentioned in their letters back.

FIrstplus sent me on a wild goose chase and this is payback. I want what i complained about before. A fair rebate against this PPI and i want FOS to help here. No-one at the FOS will comment as to whether they can look into this complaint. My loan was paid up in 2003 and they were members of GISC in 2001

Tron_ess

di3004 wrote: »

Yes true, and I can't afford to really right now with hubby on the sick... , so I will explain that I may have contacted the wrong company, they may just correct me here by saying I have or have not ?

I had better put something together tonight then, because it won't be until tomorrow or maybe the following day they will reply, think it was the next day the last time, so not long about waiting then.;)

Di - read this - Pages 88-90. Appears the rules on pheonix firms may also apply even if they co-existed. The issue is that you need to prove the Director link. If this is the case then they could be held accountable for liabilities of the dissolved firm.

http://www.accaglobal.com/pubs/publicinterest/activities/library/company_law/tech-tp-cdd.pdf

di3004

Tron_ess wrote: »

Di - read this - Pages 88-90. Appears the rules on pheonix firms may also apply even if they co-existed. The issue is that you need to prove the Director link. If this is the case then they could be held accountable for liabilities of the dissolved firm.

http://www.accaglobal.com/pubs/publicinterest/activities/library/company_law/tech-tp-cdd.pdf

Wonderful, I will check this out then Tron_ess, thank you so much.
I will try to find out who was the director to the previous firm, but do have a feeling it is that of the existing one.;)

Thanks so much, you have been most helpful, I appreciate this, as Marshallka said we have been doing everything possible today to try to find out more about these, so hopefully this will be revealed soon - fingers crossed.;)

Tron_ess

marshallka wrote: »

I have sent a complaint to the FOS for unfair rebate but not heard anything back yet. Do you think this will be thrown out again.?

I don;t want the courts route yet, just this unfair rebate thing....

There was commission paid to the broker of 5 % of the loan but not anything about the PPI?

It was only the loan that commission was paid on and it was not disclosed to me. I already complained to FP about this one too. Nothing mentioned in their letters back.

FIrstplus sent me on a wild goose chase and this is payback. I want what i complained about before. A fair rebate against this PPI and i want FOS to help here. No-one at the FOS will comment as to whether they can look into this complaint. My loan was paid up in 2003 and they were members of GISC in 2001

Re FOS - It really could depend on the adjudicator you get.

Re Hurtanger/Commission - all firms are playing this one close to their chests. They know this unlikely to be under FOS jurisdiction, so they'll almost ignore this unless the complaint is specific on this.
They still have to comply with FSA DISP rules so even if they FOB you off they should still address the issue raised in the complaint - so i'd consider going back on this point alone.
This issue has joint liability! If commission wasn't disclosed by either broker or lender then they are jointly liable to re-imburse you the value of that commission. Problem of course is that this is slightly more legally technically, and considering some firms exposure you may find they'll fight this one all the way.

marshallka

Tron_ess wrote: »

Re FOS - It really could depend on the adjudicator you get.

Re Hurtanger/Commission - all firms are playing this one close to their chests. They know this unlikely to be under FOS jurisdiction, so they'll almost ignore this unless the complaint is specific on this.
They still have to comply with FSA DISP rules so even if they FOB you off they should still address the issue raised in the complaint - so i'd consider going back on this point alone.
This issue has joint liability! If commission wasn't disclosed by either broker or lender then they are jointly liable to re-imburse you the value of that commission. Problem of course is that this is slightly more legally technically, and considering some firms exposure you may find they'll fight this one all the way.

Yeah but my loan was sold before FP or the broker were members of the GISC and came under the FSA. I just hope and pray my complaint is looked at of the unfair rebate when we settled.:D

Lets hope the adjudicator is a "good" one this time.