PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

YEOSAL

tiggrae wrote: »

Hi I've probably missed a previous post - but if it's lloyds TSB why would you need the FISA - as a bank their actions have always been covered by the FSA - apologies if you've answered this elsewhere

Hi Tiggrae

Their court defence states that they were not subject to regulation by the FSA until Jan 2005.

The PPI was taken out in 2000, and that is what they have listed as Point no. 1 in their defence.

I am just trying to gather some facts as I know I will be sat in that court room trading hard stares with their solicitors.

tiggrae

YEOSAL wrote: »

Hi Tiggrae

Their court defence states that they were not subject to regulation by the FSA until Jan 2005.

The PPI was taken out in 2000, and that is what they have listed as Point no. 1 in their defence.

I am just trying to gather some facts as I know I will be sat in that court room trading hard stares with their solicitors.

That is totally bizarre, as a bank they have been covered by the FSA since it's inception !!! Are they claiming that the claim should not go forward under the 6 year rule ??

ps you might want to contact the fos as to when LloydsTSB came under their jurisdiction - the 15th Jan 2005 date is only for the 'independent lenders' who were forced into compulsory jurisdiction at that date - the banks always have

homer_j_3

Have a read of this, hopefully it will provide you with more understanding on why the 2006 rule is being quoted.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/ICOB_review.pdf

gamekeeperturnedpoacher

[FONT=&quot]If you are simply asking your lender to cancel your ppi from a certain date then they will do so 'in most cases'. However, the ppi would have been lent to you over the term of the loan which you pay back monthly plus interest therefore, they will not credit you personally for any future premiums you have not yet paid. What they will do however is penalise you for early cancellation and credit the remaining premium you would have paid each month to the end of the term with a much lower amount. This is the early settlement penalty which is the same had you paid the actual loan off before the end of the term.

Early PPI cancellation penalties are a significant policy term and one of which your lender or insurer should not rely on you reading in your policy document. They should have told you this verbally when you applied for the loan. If this did not happen then go down the mis-selling route, there is no way they can prove that you ever received the policy terms and conditions!

I would also add, even though MBNA are FSA registered and are responsible for the sales process, deal with the insurer not the lender! If you write to the insurer regarding a cancellation or mis-selling issue you may receive a response from the insurer saying that they have no responsibility for the sales or cancellation process, if you do, they are misleading you! Your contract of insurance is with the insurer not MBNA and they must take responsibility for that! Let them deal with the lender, you need to deal with the people that know about insurance not those who simply make money out of it and don’t have a clue what they are talking about!!![/FONT]

Jaycee2411 wrote: »

Hi there, this must be what MBNA did when I cancelled the PPI I had on my loan with them. As mentioned in my previous post, they wrote me saying my loan account had 'acordingly' been 'credited with the rebate of £992.'

I didn't realise this was in the policy document. Does that mean I don't have the right to ask them to send that money directly to me, instead? It's my money, no?

gamekeeperturnedpoacher

Hi, sorry but my loan with Abbey was a loan consolidation for £20K just did it on the internet, desperate as getting married back then and needed a top up to pay for the wedding :mad:, didn't expect to get it, got the acceptance papers through about a week later!!

Locke wrote: »

That's the thing, they're claiming I applied over the internet when it's not possible to apply for a consolidation loan over the net.

gamekeeperturnedpoacher

[FONT=&quot]Hi Kaia, that does not ring true to me.

From the PPI perspective, you basically have the 'customer charge'. This is what you get charged. From this, there are deductions that the insurer needs to make for statutory monies such as IPT and reserving. There will be an admin charge to account for to administer the policies and claims and other back office functions like finance, IT and so on! Freedom Finance will definitely not have that capability in house hence those admin responsibilities will be outsourced probably to GE Insurance. THEN you have the PPI sales commission charges. Now if they are saying they have no fees or charges apply.

What is interesting is that your documents say '"We guarantee that you will pay no fees or charges other than those shown on your credit agreement and you will not pay any commission to representatives' It says 'you' not 'us'. Can this be interpreted to mean that you pay what is on your credit agreement and no more but they can disburse your money how they please? Or, they could benefit from underwriting profit only i.e. profit share where the lender after statutory payments/reserving takes X% of the premium but takes the same % in risk for claims paid? I think it's probably a play on words and if it is, I would think there's not much you can do about it!

gamekeeper
[/FONT]

Kaia wrote: »

Hi homer_j

It is always the case that a broker will receive a fee or commission.
I have been reading bits from the original information pack I had back in 2002, luckily we kept it, hadnt realised until a few weeks ago when we found it all up the attic.
(FREEDOM FINANCE)
Now on the leaflet (2002) it states NO FEES, and on the folder itself it states "We guarantee that you will pay no fees or charges other than those shown on your credit agreement and you will not pay any commission to representatives.
It goes on to say......We fully observe the FISA code of conduct.

There are no charges or fees mentioned on my CCA so does this mean that Freedom Finance sold the loan and PPi to me on behalf of GE Money for nothing, just out of the goodness of their hearts so to speak:rotfl:
Was this some sort of sales gimmick do you think?

gamekeeperturnedpoacher

[FONT=&quot]Another spin, even if Lloyds had not always been regulated by the FSA, if the current legislation provides a better result for the consumer then surely this is your argument is it not? When the FSA and the ABI claims committee (which I was a member of for some years) agree on changes in policy terms or administration decisions whether they claims or policy administration, that agreement will in the main apply retrospectively to all cases which are still legally active i.e. within 6 years. This is risk calculated by the insurers on the basis that all the cases which have been finalised although unfairly based on the new rule have been and gone and the consumer will therefore rarely never know about it (it is of course not advertised!) and hence they will not pursue it. Current cases in progress will benefit from it if you know about the change but insurers will rarely offer that info (worried about compensation claims for those cases that have been going on for some time!!). New cases will be treated under the new rule from the start.[/FONT]

I got this info from http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmBasicDetails.do?sid=56183

Current status: Authorised Effective Date: 01/12/2001:beer: Tied Agent:
Undertakes Insurance Mediation: Y Registered under Money Laundering Regulations:
Address: Tredegar Park
Pencarn Way
Duffryn
Newport
Gwent
NP10 8SB
Phone:
Fax:
Email:
Website:
44 0845 300 5599
44 01633 468 835
customer.care.insurance@lloydstsb.co.uk

Notices: UK authorised firms who have a deposit-taking permission do not usually need to obtain separate permission from the FSA to receive money from clients.
Other information: -->

tiggrae wrote: »

That is totally bizarre, as a bank they have been covered by the FSA since it's inception !!! Are they claiming that the claim should not go forward under the 6 year rule ??

ps you might want to contact the fos as to when LloydsTSB came under their jurisdiction - the 15th Jan 2005 date is only for the 'independent lenders' who were forced into compulsory jurisdiction at that date - the banks always have

gamekeeperturnedpoacher

See: http://www.fisa.co.uk/download/document/FISA%20-%20Codes%20of%20Discipline.pdf

Found this re ppi

19 Members and their Intermediaries will not use sales techniques relating to optional insurance products such as payment protection policies which might encourage consumers to take out such cover in inappropriate circumstances. In complying with this requirement Members and their Intermediaries shall have regard to the consumer's circumstances and have particular regard to [FONT=&quot]restrictions or exclusions contained within the relevant insurance policy.[/FONT]

gamekeeperturnedpoacher

NB 2001 is the FSA date, this si when I worked with a well known creditor insurer in borehamwood, herts and I left that company abt 3 months ater it first came in!

gamekeeperturnedpoacher wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]Another spin, even if Lloyds had not always been regulated by the FSA, if the current legislation provides a better result for the consumer then surely this is your argument is it not? When the FSA and the ABI claims committee (which I was a member of for some years) agree on changes in policy terms or administration decisions whether they claims or policy administration, that agreement will in the main apply retrospectively to all cases which are still legally active i.e. within 6 years. This is risk calculated by the insurers on the basis that all the cases which have been finalised although unfairly based on the new rule have been and gone and the consumer will therefore rarely never know about it (it is of course not advertised!) and hence they will not pursue it. Current cases in progress will benefit from it if you know about the change but insurers will rarely offer that info (worried about compensation claims for those cases that have been going on for some time!!). New cases will be treated under the new rule from the start.[/FONT]

I got this info from http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmBasicDetails.do?sid=56183

Current status: Authorised Effective Date: 01/12/2001:beer: Tied Agent:
Undertakes Insurance Mediation: Y Registered under Money Laundering Regulations:
Address: Tredegar Park
Pencarn Way
Duffryn
Newport
Gwent
NP10 8SB
Phone:
Fax:
Email:
Website:
44 0845 300 5599
44 01633 468 835
[EMAIL="customer.care.insurance@lloydstsb.co.uk"]customer.care.insurance@lloydstsb.co.uk[/EMAIL]

Notices: UK authorised firms who have a deposit-taking permission do not usually need to obtain separate permission from the FSA to receive money from clients.
Other information: -->

gamekeeperturnedpoacher

[FONT=&quot]Quite funny that when they impose an 8 week rule on the insurer hey! As the regulator who get paid a 'premium' to act as one, you would think that they would practise what they preach mmm....... that’s government regulation for you!


[/FONT]

tiggrae wrote: »

Hi, by experience the FOS is taking 5-6 months to complete a case review